Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [Lords]

SAINT JOHN'S CHAPEL BEVERLEY BILL [Lords]

TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PETITION (MINISTERS OF THE CROWN)

Sir Waldron Smithers: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to this honourable House a Petition signed by about 18,000 loyal subjects of His Majesty the King, and signatures are still coming in. It reads as follows:
The humble Petition of the undersigned loyal subjects of His Majesty the King, of divers political views and different walks of life tout united in the determination to uphold the strength of Britain and her prestige abroad, sheweth that in view of the increasing Communist and Fascist activities and infiltration all over the world and at a moment when the revelations of the Fuchs case have shaken world confidence in Britain and in view of their past records the continuance in office of the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence who have in the past expressed

their sympathy with Communist aims, is conducive to the increase of Communist and Fascist infiltration and activities in Britain and the consequent deterioration of Britain's credit and prestige upon which the recovery of Britain depends.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this honourable House do present an Humble Address to His Majesty praying him to remove these Ministers from His Majesty's presence and Councils for ever.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Club Premises, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Works if he was aware of the inconvenience and loss caused to the large numbers of members of the R.U.A. Club by the long continued occupation of the club premises at 5–7, West Craibstone Street, Aberdeen, by the Ministry of Food, of which he has notice; and when these premises will be restored to the club for their use.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): I am aware of the inconvenience caused to the members of the R.U.A. Club, but in the absence of any alternative accommodation I regret that it is not possible to release the property until the new office building in Aberdeen is completed.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are workers and raw materials available to complete the building, and can he


say when the new building can be finished so as to enable the club to make its own arrangements with regard to lease and things of that sort?

Mr. Stokes: The contract for the building is, in fact, being let today, and, with luck, the building should be completed early in 1952.

Building Categories, Scotland

Mr. McInnes: asked the Minister of Works the size and disposition of the building labour force in Scotland as between housing and non-housing work as at 31st March, 1948, and 1950.

Mr. Stokes: In March, 1948, there were approximately 66,000 engaged on housing work and 50,000 on non-housing work. The corresponding figures for March, 1950, were approximately 56,000 and 61,000 respectively.

Mr. McInnes: My right hon. Friend will agree that the figures reveal a considerable decline in the number of workers engaged in housing work, and will he undertake to curtail the issue of licences in Scotland in order that local

Type of work
New work
Repair and Maintenance
Total


Number of Licences
Value
Number of Licences
Value
Number of Licences
Value




£

£

£


Cinemas and music halls
87
106,658
170
124,086
257
230,744


Hotels
320
430,434
223
160,515
543
590,949


Public houses and restaurants
386
274,302
211
65,334
597
339,636


Banks and offices
329
447,046
421
267,067
750
714,113


Shops and warehouses
1,450
1,840,326
433
210,904
1,883
2,051,230


Industry (including agriculture)
2,399
8,666,101
1,202
1,983,200
3,601
10,649,301


Miscellaneous (including schools, hospitals and universities)
1,385
1,836,507
1,125
1,112,662
2,510
2,949,169


TOTALS
6,356
13,601,374
3,785
3,923,768
10,141
17,525,142

Requisitioned Properties

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Works, whether he will now say how many hotels, large houses, small houses and flats, respectively, in the London Civil Defence Region, are at present requisitioned by the Government for other use than dwelling accommodation; and how many of each category have

authorities may obtain the necessary labour force for housing work?

Mr. Stokes: No, Sir, I will not. The local authorities are getting all they want. What my hon. Friend does not realise is that there were 47,127 permanent houses and 50,655 temporary houses under construction in Scotland at that time, as compared with only 29,787 permanent houses in March, 1950. It is on account of the drop off in temporary houses that there has been the change in the incidence of labour.

Mr. McInnes: asked the Minister of Works the total number and the value of civil building licences issued during the year 1949 in Scotland in the following categories: cinemas and music halls, hotels, public houses and restaurants, banks and offices, shops and warehouses, industry and miscellaneous, respectively.

Mr. Stokes: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The overall figures are 10,141 licences for a total amount of £17,525,142.

Following is the information:

been released for use since 30th September, 1949.

Mr. Stokes: At 31st March last 11 hotels, 495 large houses, 172 small houses, and 539 flats were held by Government Departments on requisition in the London Civil Defence Region for purposes other than family dwellings. Since 30th September, 1949, three hotels, 43 large


houses, 30 small houses and 48 flats have been released. Seven of the large houses and six of the small houses have been transferred to the Ministry of Health for dwelling purposes.

Commander Noble: In view of the shortage of accommodation in London, especially during the Festival of Britain, will the Minister give an assurance that these figures are kept under constant review?

Mr. Stokes: I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the policy of the Government is to derequisition as fast as possible, having regard to all the circumstances. I cannot make a better promise than that. I think he will agree that the figures show continuous progress in the right direction, though possibly the progress is not as quick as he would like.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if these hotels are to be used for the Festival of Britain next year they ought to be derequisitioned now?

Mr. Stokes: I know all about that but, as far as London is concerned, of 20 hotels under requisition, only two will be derequisitioned this year. It is not possible to derequisition more. The Government have very much in mind the whole problem of the Festival of Britain.

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Works whether he will now say how many hotels, large houses, small houses and flats, respectively, in the United Kingdom are at present requisitioned by the Government for any other use than dwelling accommodation; and how many of each category have been released for use as dwelling accommodation since 30th September, 1949.

Mr. Stokes: The number of hotels held on requisition in the United Kingdom (including London) by all Departments at 31st March last, for use other than as family dwellings, was 68. On the same basis 1,010 large houses, 420 small houses and 598 flats were held by Departments other than the Health Departments. As regards the second part of the Question, 26 hotels, 235 large houses, 104 small houses and 45 flats have been released since 30th September, 1949, of which 12 large houses and 12 small houses have been transferred to the Ministry of Health for dwelling purposes.

Commander Noble: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my supplementary to the last Question applies equally to this one?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Sir.

Industrial Premises (Building Licences)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Works what steps his Department takes to ensure that new industrial premises are used for the purpose for which a building licence has been granted.

Mr. Stokes: I have no jurisdiction myself over the use to which a building is put once it has been erected. New industrial premises are only licensed with the support of the appropriate Government Department and, with one exception, I am not aware of any recent case in which a building licensed for a specific purpose has been put to other uses on completion.

Mr. Albu: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the buildings which derive from these licences are, in fact, sold for purposes other than those for which the licences were granted, very often, I am told, at a very large profit, sometimes double the value of the building?

Mr. Stokes: I have no evidence of that, but if my hon. Friend likes to send it to me I will certainly consider it. At present I have no authority.

Westminster Hall (Temporary Structures)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Works when it is proposed to remove from Westminster Hall the temporary offices and Members' cloakrooms which, at present, disfigure the building.

Mr. Stokes: I hope to remove the temporary offices at the end of this year and the temporary cloakrooms early next year in time for the Festival of Britain, provided Members will accept restricted cloakroom accommodation in the Cloisters until rebuilding is completed.

Sir T. Moore: As the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the beauty and dignity of the hall is destroyed by this clutter of buildings, could not he find a place, somewhere, sooner than next year?

Mr. Stokes: The answer really turns on the amount of inconvenience that hon. Members of this House will put up with. If they are prepared to be a little bit overcrowded in the cloakrooms, I expect I can make quite quick progress, but it depends upon the House.

Brigadier Medlicott: Can the Minister say how soon the screen at the head of the staircase will be removed?

Mr. Stokes: Not without notice.

Mr. Driberg: When is the new building to be completed? Surely, it is to be completed some time before the beginning of next year.

Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend is in error if he thinks that the completion of the House necessarily means the completion of all the ancillary services. The building, we hope, will be ready before the end of October, but I am making no promises. The "outlying districts" present a more difficult problem in many ways.

Cement Supplies

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that non-delivery of cement is endangering the continuity of urgent work on new roads, sites and buildings in the Braintree Rural District, Essex, and, in particular, that Messrs. Geo. Tanner and P. O. Wicks, Limited, of High Garrett, Braintree, had received by 28th April none of the 96 tons of cement ordered by them between 7th March and 26th April; and if he will endeavour to ensure greater regularity in the supply of cement to these contractors.

Mr. Stokes: I understand that the contractors have received a certain amount of cement which will, I hope, meet their most urgent requirements. My Department will give all possible help in connection with deliveries to important work that might otherwise be held up, if the contractors will supply the necessary details.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say why there has been this irregularity and delay in delivery, and is he aware of the very serious effects of it?

Mr. Stokes: I know that there have been complaints from time to time. Wherever specific cases have been brought to my notice, they have been

dealt with very promptly. I would point out that I control neither the distribution nor the manufacture of cement. I can only encourage both distributors and manufacturers to get on with the job, and that is what I am doing.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this shortage is general in Essex and particularly acute in southeast Essex, and that it is holding up building work? Will he say what he proposes to do about it?

Mr. Stokes: I assure the hon. Gentleman that further deliveries to Essex are taking place this week. I think the fault really lies in distribution, and nothing else. There is plenty of cement.

Mr. Gibson: Is not it true that the amount of cement produced is adequate and that the trouble lies with the distributors? Are not they the people who ought to be hurried up?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Sir. I would emphasise that there is some hitch in distribution. I am endeavouring to find out what it is, but, as everybody who has dealt with a complicated issue of this kind knows, one does not find the answer at once.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Minister of Works what steps he has taken to alleviate the shortage of cement on Wolverhampton housing schemes, particulars of which were notified to the Regional Office of the Ministry of Health on 27th April by the Wolverhampton Corporation Housing Builders Committee.

Mr. Stokes: Satisfactory deliveries have been arranged for all sites where the precise requirement has been reported.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the Minister look upon this as an urgent matter, because there is a shortage of cement throughout the country? If he has no control——

Mr. Speaker: This Question deals with Wolverhampton, and not the whole country.

Building Industry (Report)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Works what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Working Party on the Building Industry.

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Minister of Works what action he proposes to take to meet the criticisms of the Report of the Working Party on the Building Industry.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Works what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Working Party on the Building Industry.

Mr. Stokes: As hon. Members are aware, the recommendations in the Report are both numerous and detailed. In so far as they are exclusively for the Government to deal with, action has already been taken on a few of the recommendations and the others are under examination. The majority of the recommendations are directed to the industry and the professions and I propose to discuss these with their representatives at a meeting of my National Consultative Council this week. The Government will continue to do everything in its power to promote greater efficiency in the building industry.

Mr. Gammans: Do the Government realise that if, by proper incentives, it had been possible to restore output even to pre-war figures we could have put up another 50,000 houses last year with the same labour force?

Mr. Stokes: I am not prepared to accept that, because the houses built today are houses and not wigwams. I certainly understand the importance of incentive bonuses, but the industry does not lend itself to any rigid form of incentives scheme. The proposal needs to be examined in detail.

Mr. Marples: Can the Minister say how long the Working Party Report has been with his Department? If it has been there for several months already, why has not his Department put these recommendations into effect?

Mr. Stokes: I have said that the recommendations, in so far as they concern the Government, are already on the move. The Report came to my Department in the middle of February. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a General Election in that month and, also, that there was a change of Minister. It is important that the Minister should understand what all this was about. Prompt, energetic action is now being taken.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As this Report was completed on 11th January, can the Minister say why it was only published last week?

Mr. Stokes: For the reasons I have just stated. It was obviously undesirable to publish it in the middle of an Election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—not at all for the reasons which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have in their minds. The reason was that when the Report was handed to me I insisted on understanding what it was about before it was put out. That seems to me a reasonable course to adopt.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I put my Question down I addressed it to the Minister of Health, and that I would still very much like to know what the Minister of Health proposes to do about it?

Mr. Stokes: I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman should try again. I have no control over that.

Building Labour Force

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Works how much non-licensed work was performed on industrial premises and housing in 1949; and what checks are exercised to ensure that an undue proportion of building labour is not diverted from providing new housing accommodation.

Mr. Stokes: The amount of non-licensed work undertaken by the building and civil engineering industry in 1949 is very roughly estimated to have been about £200 million. Separate figures are not available for industrial premises and houses. In reply to the second part of the Question, the control over building work is operated so as to provide as far as possible for the requirements of housing, and there has, in fact, been some increase in the last year in the number of workers on house construction and not a diversion.

Mr. Davies: Is not there a danger that some of the labour goes on to this non-licensed work to the detriment of house-building? Is there any arrangement whereby the Minister's Department confers with local authorities to ensure that the authorities get all the labour they need?

Mr. Stokes: The figures show that the labour force on housing has been increased and not diminished. I assure my hon. Friend that there have been no complaints at all from local authorities to my Department on account of shortage of labour on housing.

Mr. McInnes: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, in answer to an earlier Question of mine, he said that there has been a decrease in labour employed on Scottish housing work, and, why in answer to this Question, he said that there had been an increase?

Mr. Stokes: Scotland is different. I have not got the figures in mind. If my hon. Friend puts down another Question, I will try to satisfy him.

Hadleigh Castle (Admission)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Works why his Department propose to make a charge for admission to the grounds of Hadleigh Castle.

Mr. Stokes: An admission fee is charged at all ancient monuments and historic buildings under the care of my Ministry where their importance and the cost of maintenance justify it. The admission fee represents a small contribution by visitors to the cost of maintenance. At Hadleigh Castle local residents will be admitted free.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Hadleigh Castle is just a small pile of stones, and that, for generations, residents in the area have gone there not so much to see the ruins as to obtain a view of the Kent coast? Is he also aware that there is great local resentment that such a charge should be imposed, and will he reconsider it?

Mr. Stokes: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has listened to my answer. I said that local residents are admitted free, that they will continue to be admitted free, and that a charge is only made for excursionists.

Parliament Square (Lamps)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works whether he is consulting the Royal Fine Art Commission about the design of the new lamp standards, lamps and fog lamps for Parliament Square.

Mr. Stokes: Design for the lamp-standards have been prepared by the architect responsible for the new layout in Parliament Square. They have been submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission by the London County Council, which is the responsible authority. I understand that the London County Council are not proposing to instal fog-lamps.

Brick Supplies, Liverpool

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Works why contractors on house building in the northern area of Liverpool are having difficulties in obtaining supplies of bricks.

Mr. Stokes: I do not know of any particular difficulty. Brick production in West Lancashire increased by nearly 3.7 millions during March, and at the beginning of April there were unsold stocks in West Lancashire of 680,000 facing bricks and nearly 8 million common bricks.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that, in Bootle and Liverpool particularly, house building is being held up because the contractors are not able to get supplies, as I personally know, and that the assertion is made in the locality—and I think there is some truth in it—that the bricks, instead of going for house building to the local contractors, are going for commercial and entertainment building purposes, which has caused the trade and the corporation——

Mr. Speaker: This Question deals only with the shortage of bricks.

Mr. Stokes: If the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars, I will have them looked into at once. The bricks are there, but there is something wrong with their distribution.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on Friday last, I rang up his Department in London with a complaint that housing schemes were being held up in Liverpool because of the shortage of bricks and cement? Has his Department reported that conversation to him?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, that conversation has been reported to me, and action has been taken.

Payments System, Building Industry

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Minister of Works when he hopes to be able to announce general agreement within the building industry to the extended adoption of systems of payment by result.

Mr. Stokes: Payment by results has been generally permitted by joint agreement in the building industry since November, 1947, and the arrangements which were to be regarded as experimental are due for review. The Building Industry Working Party have expressed the hope that the result of this review will be to continue the operation of incentive schemes, subject to any modifications which may be necessary. This is a matter for joint agreement in the industry, which I shall do all in my power to help achieve.

Mr. J. Grimston: Will the Minister bear in mind that the Working Party attached importance to incentives, and that they said:
An appropriate system of incentive schemes is an imperative requirement if output in the industry is to be adequately increased.

Mr. Stokes: I am perfectly well aware of that, but it is not so easy. The industry is not uniform, and these incentive schemes need to be varied in regard to practically every kind of contract.

Building Licences, Liverpool

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Works what is the value of the licence granted to build the Labour Club in Long Lane, Fazakerley, Liverpool; how many building trades operatives are being employed; when the licence was granted; and when the building will be completed.

Mr. Stokes: No licence has been granted to build a Labour Club in Long Lane, Fazakerley.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that his reply will give great satisfaction in Liverpool, particularly as it proves that the name I called the Member for the Kensington Ward of Liverpool is perfectly true?

Mr. Stokes: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her support.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Coke

Mr. Reader Harris: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now consider making it unnecessary for a person to obtain a licence from the Fuel Office in order to obtain coke, in view of the fact that when such a licence is now granted unlimited supplies can be obtained.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Consumers may already order as much coke as they desire from their registered coal merchants, or they may be registered separately with a coke producer for direct supplies. In neither case is any licence required. Where a consumer cannot obtain supplies from his registered merchant or from the coke producer with whom he is registered, he must obtain a licence from the local fuel overseer to enable him to purchase supplies from another merchant. Such cases are rare; but, nevertheless, I propose to amend the Order, as the hon. Member desires, to enable a domestic consumer to buy coke from any merchant in the district in which he lives.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether one consequence of this changed Order will be that people in East Bedfordshire, who have had no coal for the last 10 days, will now get some?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This Question is about coke.

Opencast Mining, Worcestershire

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number and the extent of the sites to be prospected for opencast coal mining in the rural districts of Kidderminster, Martley and Tenbury Wells in the county of Worcester.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Ten sites are to be prospected; their total area is about 970 acres. This does not mean that the whole area will, in fact, be worked for opencast coal; experience has shown that the area worked is invariably much less than the area on which preliminary prospecting is required.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the special amenities of this district and the large amount of agricultural production from it, details of which are already well-known to the Minister, could the right


hon. Gentleman initiate some urgent conversations with the other Departments concerned to determine whether or not it is desirable to continue with this prospecting?

Mr. Noel-Baker: All the Departments concerned are consulted, and the local authorities are also consulted, before any rights of entry for prospecting are taken.

Mr. George Ward: Is it not a fact that prospecting for coal in this area was undertaken several years ago, when it was decided that the coal that would be available simply was not worth taking up?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It may be that there is new evidence.

Miss Irene Ward: Are the local authorities' views accepted when they are given?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That depends on the circumstances.

Price

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why coal costs less than coke.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: With respect, the hon. Member is in error, if he thinks that, in general, coal is cheaper than coke. The prices of coal and coke vary with the grade of the fuel, and the place where it is bought. As a rule, gas coke for domestic use is cheaper than the better grades of household coal.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will arrange for domestic coal to be delivered at a uniform price for each grade throughout Great Britain.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As the hon. and gallant Member must be aware, the costs of transporting coal to different places, and the costs of distributing coal to consumers in different places, vary widely. A system of uniform prices for domestic coal throughout the country could not, therefore, be introduced without a drastic reorganisation of the present system of distribution. I am afraid it would be unwise to attempt this reorganisation at the present time.

Brigadier Clarke: Does not the Minister realise that we now all own the

coal and the transport, and that the old age pensioners and others in the South are no better off?

Mr. Speaker: Imputations and arguments are not really in order in a supplementary question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Whatever difficulties there may be in arriving at a uniform price, will the Minister look into the difficulty of getting any coal delivered in at least 20 towns and villages in the Eastern Counties at present?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will take steps to equalise the prices of coal throughout the country.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am afraid that it would not be wise to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal to equalise the prices of coal throughout the country at the present time. There have always been wide variations of price in different places; they result from differences in quality, in the distance of different places from the coalfields, in the costs of distribution, and so on. They have become an accepted feature of the industrial and economic life of the country, and to disturb them would cause most serious repercussions of various kinds.

Mrs. Middleton: I am not concerned, in this Question, with the quality of coal but with the price of coal of comparable quality. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the calorific value of a ton of coal is equally the same in the north of England as it is in Plymouth, that wages are the same, and that there is no reason why Plymouth housewives should have to pay more for comparable coal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend's Question is not confined to housewives; it deals with coal in general. Most industries in this country have been located near to the coalfields because the cost of transporting coal is thus very low. If we had a uniform national price, it would mean an overall increase for all those industries, with catastrophic results.

Mrs. Middleton: Can my right hon. Friend do something for the housewives?

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that under private enterprise cement is delivered throughout the country at the same price?

Transferred Miners, Fife (Housing)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many miners have now been transferred from Lanarkshire to Fife; and how many of them have been found houses.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: This is a matter for the National Coal Board. I am informed, however, that between the beginning of November, 1948, and 31st March, 1950, 767 miners from Lanarkshire had been transferred to the Fife and Clackmannan area. Houses had by then, been found for 661 of them; 57 were single men, who did not want houses; 49 had registered claims for houses on the local authorities' waiting lists.

Mr. Hamilton: Would not the Minister agree that this is a splendid example of the economic planning which is so much maligned by the party opposite?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, it is making a very real contribution to the production of coal.

Manpower

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what special action is being taken to counteract the serious fall in manpower in the coalmines.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The manpower problem in the coal industry is not so much that of the total labour force available, as of the best use of the workers who are already engaged in it. In some cases, redeployment is being effected with good results; elsewhere, the provision of more houses would greatly help. Detailed schemes for more houses are now being worked out.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In spite of the overlaying of the answer, does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that this is a very good example of the dislike of the workers for a nationalised industry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Not at all. Had the industry not been nationalised, there would have been very many fewer workers in it today.

Opencast Mining, Westhoughton

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the up-to-date position relating to prospecting for opencast mining in the areas of Borsdane

Wood and Newbrook Road, Westhoughton.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I know of no proposals for the opencast working of coal at Borsdane Wood. At Boardman's Plantation, Newbrook Road, it is proposed to carry out prospecting operations for the Trencherbone seam, which has been found and worked at Brackley Zone.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to convey to the National Coal Board that Newbrook Road is one of the best residential areas in Westhoughton, and that there is a strong resentment there against even prospecting for opencast coalmining?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will convey my hon. Friend's point to the National Coal Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES

Capital Expenditure

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give an assurance that there will be no cut in capital expenditure in respect of electricity requirements.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am glad to assure the hon. Lady that there is no intention to cut the total annual capital expenditure for electricity supply below the present rate. But the proposals put forward by the electricity boards must be considered in conjunction with proposals for capital expenditure on all other essential requirements, and I could not give an assurance that all their proposals will be accepted for immediate execution without amendment.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that Lord Citrine has stated that the industry is being planned out of existence, will the Minister consider handing it back to private enterprise before the lights go out?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid that that would not help. I recognise the great difficulties of the North-Eastern Division, for which the hon. Lady speaks, and I can say that the British Electricity Authority intend to make further increases in the generating plant. One station will come into operation this year, adding 50 megawatts.

North Wales Hydro-Electric Schemes

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will place in the Library a model of the proposed North Wales Hydro-Electric schemes, together with photographs of the landscape as it is at present.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir; after the Whitsun Recess I will place a model of the country affected, and of the proposed schemes, in the Library of the House.

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the estimated extra capital cost of the North Wales Hydro-Electric schemes over a coal-fired power station capable of producing a similar output; and how is this extra cost divided between civil engineering and generating plant.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I regret that the necessary surveys are not yet complete; I am unable, therefore, to give the hon. Member the estimates for which he asks.

Mr. Marples: In order that Members of this House may be able to make an accurate assessment of the position in North Wales, where there is great disquiet, will the right hon. Gentleman see that all the necessary information is placed before us?

Mr. Noel-Baker: At the proper moment, of course, all that will be done, but it cannot be done before the survey has been made.

Mr. Keeling: In view of the small saving of coal through the adoption of this scheme—of which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave us the figures in the last Parliament—and the havoc it will bring to the Snowdonia National Park, will the Minister give an assurance that he will reserve judgment on the scheme until we get the Bill?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, the hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that I will jealously consider the natural beauty of the region.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL SUPPLIES

Supplementary Allowances

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when his regional petroleum officer, South-Eastern

Region, expects to complete his review of existing supplementary allowances; when this review began; and how much petrol has been so far saved by it.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As the hon. Member will be aware, applications for supplementary petrol are staggered in six monthly groups. The special review began in November last. The saving on the claims reviewed in the first four months was about 50,000 gallons.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is on his instructions that this officer is now disallowing allowances which have been permitted for several years, although the circumstances of the applicant have not changed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It has happened that mistakes have been made in the past, and they are now being put right.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Minister's answer mean that every case in which an existing application is not renewed is an admission of a mistake by his Department?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would be very glad if the hon. Gentleman will bring any special cases to my attention, and I will look into them, but, broadly, quite a number of mistakes have been made and they have been put right, I will not say with the approval of, but without active dissent from, the applicants.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complexities of the petrol rationing scheme are such that in peace-time conditions it is not possible fairly to ration each person according to his need?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware of the complexities of the scheme, but, on the whole, I think it is pretty fair.

Mr. Lloyd: Very much "on the whole."

Haifa Refineries

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the maximum capacity of the British-owned refineries at Haifa for the refining of crude oil; and what was the value of crude oil refined there from 1st January, 1947, to 31st December, 1947, and from 1st January, 1949, to 31st December, 1949.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In normal conditions, the Haifa refineries can treat about 4 million tons of crude oil a year. American companies have a right to about a quarter of the products. The value of the British share of the products at present f.o.b. prices, was about £17,500,000 in 1947, and about £600,000 in 1949.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this means a loss to us of about 50 million dollars and also a loss of petrol; and will he or his right hon. Friends do something to clear up this very serious position?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Nobody can desire more ardently than I that the Haifa refineries should be restarted. It would be a major improvement in our international economic position. It is not my responsibility to do it, but I am sure that if my hon. Friend will make useful suggestions to my colleagues they will be very glad.

Mr. G. Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this refinery has a capacity of some 800,000 tons of petroleum which, together with the Chancellor's recent concession, would enable the Government to quadruple the petrol ration?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Certainly, it would be very important.

Mr. Janner: In view of this grave position, will my right hon. Friend consult his colleagues with a view to not lending any further moneys to those countries responsible for stopping this supply until they allow the oil to pass through the refineries?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not lend the money.

Diesel Oil

Mr. J. Grimston: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will arrange, in order to simplify work at garages, that coupons for diesel oil are valid for their face value and not for two-thirds of that value as at present.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The coupons issued to the owner of a commercial goods vehicle usually entitle him to draw either petrol or diesel oil, as he desires. But the mileage obtained from a gallon of diesel oil is greater than the mileage

obtained from a gallon of petrol; it has been regarded as fair, therefore, that the face value of the coupons, when they are used for diesel oil, should be lower than when they are used for petrol. As all issues are now made in multiples of three, the difficulty which the hon. Member fears does not, in practice, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Control Commission Staff

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of members in each grade on the staff of our High Commissioner in Germany who do not speak the German language and who have been given permanent appointments.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): No permanent appointments are being made in the Control Commission, and I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to those officers who have been given engagements for periods up to 10 years. Of the 50 officers so far engaged all have some knowledge of the German language, but in 16 cases it is not considerable.

Mr. Albu: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable that the senior members of the High Commissioner's staff who are given long-term appointments should have a good knowledge of the German language, so as to avoid misunderstanding when dealing with the German authorities?

Mr. Davies: That may be true in a vast number of cases, but there are other technical and administrative posts which do not require a knowledge of German.

Income Tax Law

Mr. Julian Amery: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what circumstances the British High Commissioner in Germany first vetoed the income tax law proposed by the Federal Government and then withdrew his veto.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The German Income Tax law provides for a reduction in tax rates, particularly for higher incomes. Since the Allied High Commission considered that its introduction would cause German budgetary deficits


and increase German balance of payments difficulties they decided on 21st April to disapprove it provisionally until proposals for-compensatory action had been put forward. Discussions took place with the Federal Finance Minister, who provided fresh information on measures to avoid budgetary deficits, and gave assurances that additional taxation would be introduced. In the light of these assurances the Allied High Commission withdrew their provisional disapproval of the law.

Mr. Amery: Could not all these subsequent negotiations with the German Finance Minister have been carried out before the veto was originally made? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, and impress upon his right hon. Friend, that a policy which is a combination of pinpricks and appeasement is hardly calculated to integrate Germany into the European system?

Mr. Davies: I would point out that the veto was a provisional veto. It was in order to obtain further information, and with a possibility that that might lead to not proceeding with the veto, that it was made provisional, and it was after further information was obtained that the veto was not applied.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Since the Germans have a very large number of unemployed is not a budget deficit a good thing, and ought not His Majesty's Government to apply to Germany the same theory as that applied to this country?

Mr. Davies: That is largely a question for the German Government. I would point out to the noble Lord that in this case the taxation was of a nature which does not commend itself to hon. Members on this side of the House, inasmuch as it was favourable to the higher levels of income.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Do we understand that the High Commissioner in Germany imposed a veto on certain fiscal measures suggested by the German Government because those measures did not happen to appeal to hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. There are three High Commissioners, representing three separate countries. The decisions which

are taken there are taken by the Allied High Commission and all factors put forward by the separate High Commissioners are taken into account.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: If, in fact, disapproval of policy by hon. Members opposite did not enter into it why did the hon. Gentleman refer to it in his previous answer?

Mr. Davies: I did not say did not enter into it. I said it was not a determining factor inasmuch as there are three High Commissioners.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We had better push on to the next Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.K. AND HUNGARY (LEGATION STAFFS)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how many members of the Hungarian Legation in London have left this country at the request of the British Government in recent months; how many employees of the Hungarian Cultural Institute have left this country; and to what extent the departure of these individuals and the closing down of the Institute was intended as a reprisal for action taken by the Hungarian Government;
(2) which members of the British Legation staff in Hungary have bad to leave that country in recent months as a result of being declared persona non grata; and how many employees of the British Council have left Hungary as a result of the Hungarian Government's action in refusing to allow them to continue their work.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Two members of His Majesty's Legation in Budapest, the Commercial Secretary and the Assistant Military Attaché, had to leave Hungary a few weeks ago as each was declared persona non grata. Six employees of the British Council had to leave because their residence permits were withdrawn. No member of the Hungarian Legation has yet left this country at the request of His Majesty's Government, although the departure of one was requested on 18th April as a reprisal. There was only one Hungarian employee of the Hungarian Cultural Institute. This person was not


required to leave this country. The closing down of the Institute was also a measure of reprisal.

Major Beamish: Can the Minister say what sort of reprisal it is to close down a totally non-existent organisation?

Mr. Davies: We would not accept the assumption that it was a non-existent organisation. Work was being carried on, and the work of the Institute has now ceased.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that he is absolutely wrong in saying work was carried on? All the work which he said the Institute was doing has been done by the Hungarian Club. Are not the wires getting crossed somewhere, and will the Minister look into the matter further?

Mr. Davies: All I can say is that the work that was being done previously has now ceased to be done.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: On the assumption of the Minister that there was only one employee, if it was not a non-existent organisation it was as near to it as makes no difference.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUNISIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS' CLAIMS)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet make a statement concerning negotiations with France about war damage compensation to be paid to Maltese and other British subjects in Tunisia; what are the numbers demanding compensation; how much is still involved; and how much money was paid out before the Quai d'Orsay stopped further payments.

Mr. Ernest Davies: His Majesty's Government are about to open negotiations with the French Government on this subject, and it is not yet possible for me to make a statement. As the hon. Member was informed in answer to his Question of 27th July, 1949, British claims notified to His Majesty's Consul-General at Tunis number 103, of which 80 are Maltese. The amount involved is stated to be approximately 41,500,000 francs. No information is available as to the amount of money paid out before the French authorities stopped further payments.

Mr. Teeling: Is the Minister aware that many of these Maltese, who are in a very small way financially, had already been paid preliminary sums and, as a result of that, went on with the rebuilding and are now in very dire straits? It is something three years since the last payment was made by the French?

Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it was at first assumed by both the French authorities and the British that the Anglo-French Reciprocal Agreement of 3rd December, 1946, was applicable to these overseas territories but, later, the French decided it was not. It is on that basis that the negotiations are now taking, place.

Mr. Teeling: Is the Minister aware that there is no anger with the British Government about this but with the Quai d'Orsay? It is a year since I last asked a Question. Will the Minister now do something about it, as the Maltese are not rich enough to carry on?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET EMBASSY, LONDON

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are taken to ensure that Soviet officials, admitted to this country with diplomatic status, return to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics after they are no longer on the Official Diplomatic List.

Mr. Ernest Davies: None, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher: Does that mean that there is no check on the activities of these officials when they cease to be on the Diplomatic List?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have no power to compel aliens to proceed to any particular country, but when diplomats leave the Soviet Embassy here the Home Secretary is informed and then appropriate steps are taken to see they conform with our aliens laws.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the negotiations with Albania.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 19th April.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the House be told when there is likely to be a statement, and why the House should not now be informed of the terms of reference?

Mr. Davies: These negotiations are of a confidential nature, and it is hoped that further meetings will take place at an early date.

Mr. Pickthorn: Why should the terms of reference be confidential?

Mr. Davies: The terms of reference are not confidential. It is known that these negotiations are concerned with the manner of payment of a claim awarded to this country at the International Court.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If the Minister tells us that the terms are not confidential could he not tell us what the terms are?

Mr. Davies: I have nothing to add to what I have just said.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman did not say anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS (PASSPORTS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what United Kingdom officials have the right abroad to withdraw a British passport from a British subject and on what authority; who is enabled by his regulations to claim a British passport and who can be refused if a British subject by birth or by Act of Parliament; and what instructions on this question are given to the relevant British officials abroad.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As the answer is lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Teeling: Is the Minister aware that the Lord Chancellor, in another place, in a Debate on Sir Oswald Mosley's passport, said it was the right of a British subject? Can he say whether, in the answer he is circulating, he is stating that it is the right of a British subject or not?

Mr. Davies: I must ask the hon. Gentle-to study the lengthy reply in HANSARD. It is a very technical and legal matter. If

he wishes for further information he can approach my Department.

Following is the reply:

Outside the United Kingdom passports are issued by His Majesty's diplomatic representatives, consuls-general and consuls, and, in countries of the Commonwealth, by the High Commissioners of the United Kingdom. Under the General Instructions for His Majesty's Foreign Service, issued under the authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a United Kingdom passport must be impounded whenever there is good reason to believe that the holder is in wrongful possession of the passport. Foreign service officers may also be instructed from time to time to impound any specific passport which may come into their hands and which in the judgment of the Secretary of State it is desirable to impound. The authority in both cases is the Royal Prerogative exercised through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Any person who is a British subject, citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or a British subject without citizenship, or a British protected person may apply for a United Kingdom passport, but as no one has a legal right to a passport, this facility may be withheld at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Foreign service officers, are, however, instructed that, provided the applicant establishes citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, very strong grounds would be required to justify the refusal of a passport; and in no case should a person whose claim to such citizenship is not in doubt definitely be refused a passport, or alternative form of United Kingdom travel document, without previous reference to the Foreign Office, who will decide whether the application should in the circumstances be refused.

It follows that passports are not withheld from British subjects abroad except on the most substantial grounds and in no circumstances may a British subject, citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, be denied a travel document to enable him to return to the United Kingdom.

Where a travel document is required for a direct journey to the United Kingdom or other part of His Majesty's Dominions and the foreign service officer is of the opinion that the case is not one


in which a regular passport should be issued or is not fully satisfied by the evidence of nationality produced, he may, under his standing instructions, issue a special form of travel document known as an Emergency Certificate.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)

Mr. Julian Amery: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a further statement on the progress of the negotiations now in train for the establishment of diplomatic relations between His Majesty's Government and the Communist Government of China.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir.

Mr. Amery: Will the Minister bear in mind, and impress upon his right hon. Friend, that continued delay in these negotiations must be injurious to British prestige all over the world, and especially in South-East Asia? Will he seriously consider whether it would not be an act of statesmanship to set a time limit to these negotiations, beyond which the offer to establish diplomatic relations would be withdrawn?

Mr. Davies: I would not accept the assumption that delay was harmful to the prestige of the British Government. As I have previously stated, the next step in this case rests with the Central People's Government of China.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would it not be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman's Department looked round to see if they could find a backbone somewhere?

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the first ambassador sent by this country to China spent five and a half years there before he was recognised? At the present rate do we not seem likely to beat that record?

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the lack of reciprocity on the part of the Government of China and the continued difficulty met by British commercial interests in Shanghai and elsewhere, he will consider withdrawing recognition of the new régime.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the damage which this premature recognition of the Peking régime has done in Malaya, can the hon. Gentleman say how long the Government propose to go on accepting these deliberately meant insults to us?

Mr. Paget: Can the Government imagine any better way of throwing the Chinese into the Russian lap than by denying them diplomatic access to anybody else?

Mr. Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received from the Communist Government of China according recognition to His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Certainly not. There has been no corresponding situation in the United Kingdom which would give rise to any possible doubt as to what the Government of the United Kingdom was.

Mr. Hollis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there may be no doubt in the minds of people in the United Kingdom, but there apparently seems to be some doubt in the minds of the people of China?

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of Order. I have always understood, Sir, that an hon. Member was not allowed to put down a Question which asked whether a certain communication had been received, unless he had certain knowledge that the communication had or had not been received?

Mr. Speaker: I have never heard that. One may always ask if anything has been received or not. Every Member is responsible for the Questions he puts down. It has nothing to do with me whether the communication has or has not been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Relief and Works Agency

Mr. William Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what subscription the Government proposes to pay to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The amount of the contribution so far agreed by His Majesty's Government is £2,500,000.

Mr. Wells: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask if he is now satisfied that the arrangements for the relief and rehabilitation of Arab refugees is on the best basis that circumstances make possible?

Mr. Davies: I think the hon. Member should wait and see the result of relief which is contemplated under the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Mr. John Hay: Can the Minister say whether this payment will be made in sterling or in dollars?

Abducted Greek Children

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent communications he has had with the United Nations about kidnapped Greek children.

Mr. Ernest Davies: My right honourable Friend has had no recent communications with the United Nations on this question. As I indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. De Chair) on 1st May, it is being dealt with by the International Red Cross.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does that mean that His Majesty's Government are not conscious either of any responsibility in this matter or of the scandal which everyone of human feelings suffers as long as this matter is allowed to go uncured and unfinished?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. It is in the hands of the International Red Cross and they are doing everything in their power in accordance with resolutions which have been passed at the United Nations.

Sir Ronald Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many children are victims of these foul crimes?

Mr. Davies: There are varying reports as to the numbers and it is very difficult to ascertain the precise number of children so involved, but it certainly exceeds 10,000.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman used the words "dealt with by the International Red Cross." What does he mean by that? What are they actually doing?

Mr. Pickthorn: Cannot we really be told what the Red Cross are doing? Should there not be communications at a Governmental level?

Mr. Davies: In March this year the International Red Cross invited the Red Cross societies of the countries concerned in this matter to a meeting at Geneva, but only the Greek Red Cross sent delegates to that meeting. There is nothing in the power of His Majesty's Government to compel foreign countries to send delegations to meetings.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is there nothing in the power of His Majesty's Government to bring any influence or pressure to bear on any foreign Government?

Palestine Arab Refugees

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent communications he has had with the United Nations about Palestine Arab refugees.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Secretary General of the United Nations has been in communication with His Majesty's Government regarding our financial contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees, and the appointment of its director. The United Nations Palestine Conciliation Commission has also consulted the Foreign Office informally regarding the release of Arab balances blocked in Israel.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we be told how many Palestine Arab refugees His Majesty's Government think there still are?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Eden: Could we not be told? Could not the hon. Gentleman tell us how this matter now stands? This is a matter in which the whole House takes an interest.

Mr. Davies: We believe that the figure which I have been asked to give is round about three-quarters of a million.

Mr. David Renton: Bearing in mind that these people have been deprived of the opportunity of living in their country, will the hon. Gentleman say where they will get an economic livelihood in future?

Mr. Davies: That is precisely what the United Nations is considering at the present time. It is endeavouring to bring about the resettlement of the Arab refugees through a number of works projects which are being worked out in the Middle East.

Mr. Eden: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many have been resettled so far?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. It has not reached the point where there has been actual resettlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PHILIPPINES (WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he anticipates that compensation for war damage sustained in the Philippines by British concerns and provided for by Act of Congress will be paid.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 26th July, 1948. Representations have been made to the United States Department to secure such amendments of the Philippine Rehabilitation Act, 1946, as will make British subjects and legal persons eligible for compensation. The United States Government referred this question to the War Claims Commission, set up under the United States War Claims Act of 1948, and I understand that its report is expected to be made to Congress shortly.

Mr. Marshall: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "shortly"? He has referred to the reply given by him to me in 1948. He also gave a similar reply in 1946. In the meantime these people have had nothing.

Mr. Davies: I am not responsible for the speed with which United States Congress works.

Mr. Macdonald: Does this compensation include payment for the internment of British citizens?

Mr. Davies: That matter will be decided, presumably, when the report is received by the United States Government and when action is taken by the United States Congress.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN VISITORS (CURRENCY)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what nations at the present time allow no currency facilities to their nationals who wish to visit Great Britain as tourists; and whether, in view of the desirability of attracting as many foreign visitors to Great Britain as possible during 1951 in connection with the Festival of Britain, he proposes to make any representations to the countries concerned, with a view to persuading them to provide the necessary currency facilities for their nationals by then.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is intended to commence a publicity campaign in foreign countries to encourage foreign visitors to come to this country for the Festival of Britain; and whether, before-commencing any such publicity in countries which allow no foreign exchange for their nationals to visit this country as tourists, he will take some steps to persuade or encourage the Governments concerned to grant such facilities prior to 1951.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The British Travel and Holidays Association is already covering the Festival of Britain in its publicity material for overseas. The overseas publicity campaign of the Festival Office itself will begin in the late summer in the Commonwealth and the United States and in November in Europe. Latin America and certain other territories.
The question of securing relaxation of existing currency restrictions for foreign visitors is kept constantly in mind and will be taken up with the countries concerned during the period prior to the opening of the Festival. As the list of countries still imposing restrictions is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Teeling: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is particularly important to get people here from South America, and that in some States in South America quite recently all exchange has been forbidden for people coming out of that country or coming here? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore bear South America particularly in mind?

Mr. Peter Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the persons engaged in the propaganda campaign to which he referred, Mr. Paul Wright, stated in the United States, at a Press conference that he denied that those who visited the Festival would be exposed to propaganda in the Socialist way of life, though they would hardly be able to miss the medical scheme?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman appears to be giving information and not asking for it.

Following is the list:

A number of countries do not allocate, for purposes of tourist visits to the United Kingdom, any basic allowance such as is granted by His Majesty's Government for visits to a range of countries, but are understood to consider applications on their merits.

These include Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Spain, U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, and Albania. Certain other countries, while not allocating a basic allowance, permit the acquisition of exchange at free market rates involving a premium over the official rate. These include Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERLIN (WHITSUNTIDE RALLY)

Mr. H. L. D'A. Hopkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give a formal warning to the Soviet Government that the Soviet authorities will be held responsible for any loss of life which may occur in the British sector of Berlin as the result of the projected invasion of the Western sectors of the city at Whitsuntide by large numbers of young persons from the Eastern zone of Germany.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir. I cannot accept the assumption that such an invasion is projected.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extent to which any incidents which may occur in the Western sectors will be exploited in Communist propaganda in the Federal Republic and in the Eastern zone, and will he do his best to make it quite clear, through the

B.B.C.'s Eastern Germany service, that any incidents which do occur will be the direct responsibility of the Soviet Government?

Mr. Davies: The main responsibility for maintaining law and order in the Western sectors during this rally will rest with the German authorities, but the arrangements naturally have the full support of the Western Occupying Powers. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that in view of the reasonably satisfactory way in which the May Day demonstrations passed off, we can be confident that there will be no disturbances at Whitsuntide.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a question of some 500,000 Germans coming from the Eastern zone to the Western sectors?

Mr. Davies: There has been a great deal of talk on those lines, but we cannot be convinced that that will take place, and we are fully prepared for any eventuality.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TRAWLER (DETENTION)

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what requests he has made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Government for news of the Grimsby trawler "Etruria," the last news of which was a wireless message that she was being boarded by a Russian crew; and with what result.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I have received no further information since my statement in the House on 5th May, when I reported that His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow had addressed an inquiry to the Soviet Government.

Mr. Lindsay: Is this not a glaring example of what has now become only too apparent—that His Majesty's Government are quite powerless to afford any protection to British nationals behind the Iron Curtain? Is there no action of a retaliatory nature which can be taken? Is there no Soviet ship in a British port at the present time?

Mr. Davies: We have to behave with responsibility in such matters. His Majesty's Ambassador delivered the note


to the Soviet authorities only on Friday, and today is Monday, and we consider it is reasonable to allow time for a reply to be received.

Mr. Lindsay: The ship has been there a week.

Mr. Eden: Everybody understands responsibility, but it is, on the face of it, an extremely high-handed action, is it not, for a British trawler to be boarded in this way in a foreign port? In view of that, should not the hon. Gentleman draw the Soviet Government's attention to the fact that such conduct does not promote friendly relations between nations?

Mr. Davies: While I fully agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, the fact is that this is not an uncommon occurrence. Fishing trawlers in quite a number of parts of the high seas are quite frequently accosted in this manner. In the case of Norway it has been necessary to apply to the International Court at the Hague for certain rulings on the matter.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Could my hon. Friend yet say whether this ship was inside or outside territorial waters?

Mr. Davies: That is something which we are endeavouring to establish, and I might say that two of the trawlers which were in the vicinity when this trawler was arrested are being questioned concerning the facts. One of them is now on its way home. We have failed to contact it by wireless, but as soon as it reaches port, which is expected to be on Wednesday, questions will be asked and we hope then to ascertain more of the facts.

Mr. Eden: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether, meanwhile, there has been any contact between our consular officers and any members of the crew?

Mr. Davies: No. Sir; not to our knowledge, as yet.

Mr. Eden: Would it not be the natural thing to ask for that, which is the normal procedure in these cases?

Mr. Davies: That is what we are trying to do, through the normal channels.

Sir R. Ross: Will the Government resist any pretensions of the Soviet Government that their territorial waters extend beyond the recognised limit of three miles?

Mr. Davies: There is an agreement with the Soviet Government whereby His Majesty's Government do not recognise that territorial waters extend for more than three miles, but so long as a vessel is not within three miles of the Soviet coast, the question of territorial waters would not be relevant.

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman used the word "agreement." Does it mean that the Soviet Government accept our contention? Does he mean "agreement"?

Mr. Davies: An agreement is an agreement, and this agreement is recognised by His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government.

Captain Ryder: Does not this armed boarding of one of our vessels come under Article VI of the Atlantic Pact?

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman quite clear that the Soviet Government agreed that their territorial waters do not extend for more than three miles? Did they agree or not?

Mr. Davies: The position is that the Soviet Government claim that their territorial waters extend to a 12-mile limit, but because we do not accept that, or have not accepted it in the past, we have an agreement with them that in a case such as we presume is now under consideration it extends to only three miles.

Major Beamish: And they recognise that?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN

Lewis John Edwards, esquire, for Brig-house and Spenborough.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.35 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to create a Foreign Compensation Commission, which is to be a semi-judicial corporate body. The need for such a body will arise when a lump sum is paid to His Majesty's Government by a foreign government following an agreement for compensation for British interests in that foreign country as a result of a variety of measures including, in many instances, the nationalisation of industries in that country. When such a situation arises the Foreign Compensation Commission, if this House approves of it being set up, will receive and will determine the claims to a share in the lump sums which have been paid by the foreign government.
The immediate need for a body of this kind arises on account of agreements which have been reached between His Majesty's Government and, on the one hand, Yugoslavia, and, in the second case, Czechoslovakia. The agreements with Yugoslavia were made in two parts in December, 1948, and December, 1949, and the Anglo-Czechoslovak agreement was made in September, 1949. It is proposed, in addition, that this Commission should be available to be used on future occasions if similar agreements are made with other countries.
The House will appreciate that the problem is not a new one. There have been negotiations and agreements of this kind before and awards of lump sums which have had to be distributed. I think I should, therefore, explain why it is that, although we have managed to deal with this question in the past without a Commission of this kind, we now think it appropriate to put these proposals before the House. I should perhaps make it clear, too—it may help to limit the discussion as we go on—that with one very minor exception the Bill relates solely to the method of determining claims and distributing money once the lump sum has been agreed and, with that one exception, it does not affect in any

way either the negotiations with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia or any other negotiations which might occur.
In the past claims have been dealt with broadly in three different ways. One was by setting up a Mixed Claims Commission which adjudicated on each claim between the claimants and the foreign government concerned. In a formal sense that was quite a suitable arrangement, but it has proved very slow in operation. In many cases the claimants have gone for years without receiving their money. What has, factually, perhaps been more important is that it has not usually been found very agreeable to the foreign government and, therefore, it has become more and more difficult to get foreign governments to agree to the use of the Mixed Claims Commission procedure. In fact, the countries with whom we have had to deal in this matter since the end of the last war have in all cases, I think, refused to accept the procedure.
The second way in which this has been dealt with in the past has been by an agreement between His Majesty's Government and what I might call the debtor government as a result of which the lump sum for all the British claims is agreed. That leaves the Government here to deal with the splitting up of the lump sum among the individual claimants. This procedure also involves the Government in making, at the moment the negotiations are entered upon, a preliminary estimate of what the approximate total of the claim is likely to be, because unless some estimate is made it is very difficult to enter any effective negotiations with the government concerned. An estimate has been made by the Government, negotiations have been entered into, and there has been in the end a bargain. That is what has happened in the two cases which I have particularly mentioned of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. The division has been done under the authority of the Secretary of State and in his discretion.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would my hon. Friend say what the estimate was?

Mr. Younger: I do not know to what my hon. Friend is referring. An estimate has to be made in the case of each separate negotiation. Some preliminary


inquiry—it cannot be more than that—has to be made to discover approximately what is likely to be the amount of compensation which the Government think they should claim from the foreign governments. At that stage it can only be rough.
When the separate claims have been numerous and large in the past the Secretary of State has appointed either an individual legal expert to advise him on the distribution of the money, or in some cases a committee, usually under a qualified legal chairman, has given advice; but the distribution itself has been the decision of the Secretary of State. There is a third way, which has not, I think, now very much practical relevance, but I should, perhaps, mention it, and that is the possibility of direct negotiation with the government concerned on each separate claim; but as the House will realise, at any rate where the claims are numerous, that is very rarely a practical procedure.
The intention is that a Foreign Compensation Commission should be set up under this Bill. It would take the place of the independent expert or committee who, in former cases, advised the Secretary of State. We think it right to make this change, not because of any lack of power on the part of the Secretary of State—in the past he has had ample powers to do this—nor, on the whole, because bad results were achieved by that method. The reason why we think we should now have the Commission is rather, in the first place, that there are under these agreements very large sums involved; they have to be split up among a very large number of claimants; there are difficult and complicated questions to be decided in the distribution.
Also there is the possibility—I put it no higher—that there will be other agreements of this kind. There are two or three countries with which we may hope before long to have agreements of this kind. Therefore, it seems to us in these circumstances that it is really more appropriate that what is essentially a judicial function of assessing claims and the shares of each different claimant should be performed now by a standing body, a judicial body, which should not merely advise the Secretary of State but actually take the decision and actually distribute the money.
What the Commission is designed to do is set out in very general terms in the text of the Bill. That will be found in Clause 2, as regards its functions under the Anglo-Yugoslav and the Anglo-Czechoslovak Agreements, and under Clause 3 as regards functions which it is intended it should perform as a result of any future negotiations and any future agreements. The details of how it will have to apply that agreement, the nature of the law which it will have to operate in each case, will have to be laid down by Orders in Council, a separate Order in Council being made as a result of each separate agreement.
I expect most hon. Members will have seen Command Paper 7942 which was issued with the Bill and which explains in some detail why this procedure has to be adopted. The Command Paper has attached to it as annexes drafts which are not final drafts, but, I may say, semifinal drafts, of the Orders in Council which it is proposed to issue in the Yugoslav and Czechoslovak cases. I think that hon. Members who look at those drafts and see how complicated they are, how detailed the provisions, and have noted the respects in which these two Orders in Council differ from each other, will appreciate that really there is no other way of dealing with the detailed instructions to be given to this Commission except to make a separate Order in Council on each separate occasion.
If this Bill is approved by the House, and when it has received the Royal Assent, we should hope to be able to make those two Orders in Council, of which drafts are attached to the Command Paper, at once, and we should hope that the Commission that is proposed might begin work as early as August this year. We think that the work under these two agreements will occupy it very fully for at least 18 months or two years; and even after that it will certainly have a considerable amount of residuary work to do, because under the two agreements compensation is paid by instalments. We have not actually received all of it, and shall not receive all of it for some time to come; it therefore, cannot, obviously, be distributed for some time to come.
The amount due under the agreements from Yugoslavia is £4,500,000 and the


instalments of that are not due to be completed until 1957, although they are starting now. The amount due from Czechoslovakia is £8,000,000, and that is payable by instalments which go on for a number of years starting from September this year. Once the claims have been established—that may be a matter of 18 months or so, one cannot tell—the Commission may under Article IV of the proposed draft Order in Council make an interim payment, but the final payment, as I say, in the nature of things cannot be made until the whole of the sums have been received from the foreign governments, and that will be some years hence.
I should like now to call attention to the function proposed to this Commission in respect of future agreements. Should any future agreement be made, it would perform the same function as it is intended that it should perform in the Czechoslovak and Yugoslav cases; but in addition, it is thought that this commission would be an appropriate instrument whereby the Government might make the preliminary estimates, to which I referred, at the moment of entering negotiations. I do not think that needs any further elaboration, with the one exception to which I referred earlier in my general statement, that the Commission will have nothing to do with the negotiations with the foreign State: it will merely be concerned with the distribution after the agreement has been reached. This function of making an estimate will, of course, have some effect on the negotiations since it will influence the Government in determining how much they ought to claim.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will my hon. Friend now tell us what estimates were made in both the case of Czechoslovakia and the case of Yugoslavia of the total claims?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that on this Bill I ought to enter into matters with which the Bill really is not concerned—the precise amounts which were put forward when negotiations started. In point of fact, I have not those figures with me, and I could not tell my hon. Friend offhand, but, of course, an estimate had to be made and it was made by Departmental machinery. The only change that will be made by this Bill is that instead of its being made through

Departmental machinery it will be made through the machinery of the proposed Commission.
The composition of the Commission is set out broadly in Clause 1. The chairman, it is intended, should be a person of high legal standing, and is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and other members are also appointed. The number it is necessary to appoint will be subject to the amount of work with which the Commission may from time to time have to deal, and will be decided by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury. The size of the Commission can be varied from time to time, and it is not thought that any difficulty will arise to prevent us ensuring that this Commission is always of an appropriate size. Even supposing at some future date there should be no work for the Commission at all, there would, I think, be no difficulty in keeping it in being by the appointment of an honorary commissioner who would have, for the time being, neither salary nor functions.
The precise numbers who will be needed immediately are not yet settled, but as we wish to proceed, if possible, with the claims under these two agreements simultaneously, the probability is that we shall wish to appoint a sufficient number of members to the Commission to enable it to sit simultaneously in two chambers. There will probably be a whole-time chairman presiding over one and a whole-time deputy-chairman over the other, both of them men of legal standing. They would have at least two other commissioners sitting with them.
It is provided in the draft Orders in Council that in these two cases at least the claims should be determined by a body consisting of not less than three commissioners. They will also, of course, need office staff to assist them in receiving the claims and in ensuring that the claims are made in accordance with the prescribed procedure, to conduct correspondence, and so on. I do not think I need go any further into the composition of the body, nor into any details as to its procedure. Anything that I might say would, of course, be wholly provisional.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will it be open to the different claimants to be represented by counsel?

Mr. Paget: Yes.

Mr. Younger: That does not appear, I think, in the Bill itself.

Mr. Paget: Yes.

Mr. Younger: Generally speaking, the position is that, under Clause 4 the procedure is to be laid down by the Commission and approved by the Lord Chancellor. I am coming to the question of Parliamentary control in a moment, but the rules of procedure are to be laid down by the Commission and approved by the Lord Chancellor in the first instance.
The cost of this Commission is set out in Clause 7, and explained in paragraph 7 of the White Paper. The initial cost of setting up this Commission and of handling the early stages of any series of claims must inevitably be provided by Parliament, but as will be seen from the Financial Memorandum, where the matter is made quite clear, the intention is that the cost of the determination of claims and the distribution of the compensation should be recovered out of the sums paid by the foreign government in respect of the claims under each agreement.
On the other hand, the cost of the work of estimating the approximate totals at the beginning of negotiations, if they should arise on subsequent occasions, will in any event have to fall on public funds, and it has not been thought right that that should fall also upon the sum which is eventually awarded as compensation. In point of fact, as I have already said, that type of estimate has had to be done in the past, and has been done at the expense of the Departments, and in the case of large claims has very often involved the recruitment of extra staff. Therefore, I do not think that in that respect there will be any very substantial amount added to the cost to the public purse in setting up this Commission.
I said that I would refer to Parliamentary control, and hon. Members will have observed that under Clause 8 all the Orders in Council made under the Bill will come before the House and will be subject to annulment through the negative resolution procedure. Equally, the procedural rules, once they have been approved by the Lord Chancellor, will also be liable to that procedure. The accounts of the Commission are dealt with in Clause 6. They will be certified

by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and will also be laid before Parliament. Finally, the Commission will report annually to the Secretary of State, and copies of the report will be laid before Parliament. I think hon. Members will therefore appreciate that the House will have a very full control of the way in which this Commission will operate in these agreements, or under any future agreements which may be made.
At this stage, in commending the general principle of this Commission to the House, I do not think that I need go into any further details. I would emphasise that we have thought it right to put this Bill forward now because, although the Secretary of State has handled claims of this kind satisfactorily in the past on his own authority, and in most cases with the advice of independent persons, we nevertheless feel that the size of the claims, the complexity of the issues, and the probability that there will be a series of agreements of this kind, suggest that the time has come to set up a permanent semi-judicial body which will not merely advise but will actually take the decisions.
I think it is appropriate that this should be, so far as possible, a judicial rather than an executive decision. The method will probably not involve any more expense—certainly not much more expense—than has been involved under the old procedure, and is indeed likely, according to my information, to cost less than the Mixed Claims Commission used on previous occasions. We have got a Bill which gives what we consider a very full measure of Parliamentary control, and I therefore ask the House to approve it and to give it a Second Reading.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I attempt first of all to satisfy hon. Members opposite who have not been able to obtain certain information from the spokesman of the Foreign Office. They can always come to us for information if they are not satisfied by His Majesty's Ministers. I, therefore, propose to open my remarks by giving them some of the answers which the Minister was unable to provide. The Anglo-Czechoslovak agreement, which was concluded in September, 1949, provided, so I am informed, for the payment


to this country over a period of 10 years of a global sum amounting to £8 million for compensation in respect of British property expropriated by various nationalisation decrees.
Then I am informed that two agreements have been negotiated with Yugoslavia, the first in December, 1948, in which the global compensation figure to be paid by Yugoslavia is £4½ million, which is, as I understand it, to be the first instalment. If the Minister of State thinks I am wrong, perhaps he will correct me. The second, dated 26th December, 1949, obliges Yugoslavia to pay the balance of compensation at the rate of £506,000 per annum over a period of eight years. I do not, of course, know whether the meagre sources at my command are correct. If not, perhaps the Government could correct me.

Mr. Younger: There is one point on which I think perhaps I might fairly correct the right hon. Gentleman. The question my hon. Friend asked me was not what were the sums which had actually been paid under these agreements, but what was the original estimate made by His Majesty's Government when negotiations were entered upon. That was the figure I was not able to provide. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is able to provide it.

Mr. Butler: I was coming to that point, but I was first giving the essential facts which form the basis of our calculations on this Bill. In regard to the estimate, it would be very valuable for us to have from the Government some exact figure.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman, who a moment ago made such boastful remarks about the information he would be able to give in answer to the question I put, is now apparently quite unable to substantiate his pretence. I was asking for information as to what was the estimate, to which the Minister referred, of the claims which were liable to arise against these countries.

Mr. Butler: I think it would be impossible for me to give those details to the hon. Gentleman. I am not in possession of the inner mind of the Government, but I have tried to give the only figures at my disposal in rising to make a short contribution on this Bill. I think

that if I did not make the best use of the only figures at my disposal, I should not be able to make a very valuable contribution to this Debate. However, we are left completely dissatisfied by the reply of the Minister of State, who cannot yet give us the estimate for which the hon. Member has asked. With the slight help—I agree less than the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), could have hoped for—I have been able to give, perhaps the Minister, at a later date, can give us the other figure.
This occasion is a very notable one because the Foreign Office come very rarely to the House to legislate, and, if I may say so, I think that the manner of presentation of this Bill is quite first-class. First of all, we have a very lengthy Memorandum on the Foreign Compensation Bill, and then we have two draft Orders in Council, showing us the type of order which will result from the passage of this Bill. If anyone desires to go into this matter in great detail—a category in which I do not necessarily include myself—the Bill has been presented with the utmost clarity. If one were to read this Memorandum in great detail, one would be very well-informed indeed on the subject matter before the House for discussion this afternoon. I have only one or two observations to make since we do not propose to have a "snap" Division on this matter. In that respect I am not referring to any other discussion which we may have this afternoon, but to this particular Measure.
The first point that arises is that it is quite obviously preferable that a Commission of this sort should be set up instead of the rather ad hoc procedure used previously by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. No doubt, the previous machinery was tolerably effective, but this is a much better way of empowering the Executive to avoid the necessity of fulfilling quasi-judical functions. Relating to the machinery of the Commission, I notice that there is a sentence in the Memorandum which says:
The provisions with regard to it are such that no expenditure will be involved, on salaries or on other purposes, if there is no work for it to do, or in excess of that appropriate for the work it has to do at any particular time.
These seem to be general observations, which, if applied to the administration as a whole, would be extremely satisfactory,


because they seem to sum up the whole defect of the present conduct of administration by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite at the present time. If they could evolve a body which is a paragon in this respect and which, when it has no work to do, subsides and completely disappears and is no cost to the taxpayer at all but which, on the other hand, always has the appropriate staff to do exactly what it is asked to do—then the right hon. Gentleman could preen himself on coming to the House and recommending a piece of machinery without precedent either in the sphere of public administration or in that sphere in which the Attorney-General is more accustomed, the higher ranges of legal practice and administration.
I hope, therefore, that we may have a little more detail from whoever replies to this Debate—perhaps the distinguished Attorney-General will be replying himself or the Under-Secretary—as to what exactly the future scope of the work of this Commission is going to be. It is fairly clear that the Commission is dealing with two main subjects, namely, the transactions arising between the Yugoslav and Czechoslovak Governments respectively and ourselves. It is also clear that if this Commission is to be in being in the future in this miraculous sort of way, in which at one moment it is fully staffed and ready, and at any other moment it has completely disappeared at no cost to the Exchequer, we should like to know whether it will deal with comparatively minor transactions.
So far as I know, after reading every particular of this Memorandum, one point is not quite clear. Will it deal only with major agreements, such as the Czechoslovak and Yugoslav agreements, or with minor agreements and minor transactions as well? If that be the case, I should like a little further explanation as to how it will always be possible to have competent people available at any time, including the necessary secretariat and their staff to deal with a particular matter which may be raised ad hoc, as it were, and very often without much warning. If the Attorney-General could explain that, we could have a gap in our knowledge filled, and, no doubt, a satisfactory explanation can be given.
I should like to ask about the association of the other Commonwealth Governments. I understand that they have agreed in principle to the Foreign Compensation Bill and that they have been consulted about the draft Foreign Compensation (Yugoslavia) Order in Council. Does that mean that they have been consulted about both these Orders in Council? That is not specifically mentioned. Does it mean that in general the Commonwealth Governments are in agreement, and that they will, so to speak, cease their membership or association in other ways with the constitution of the Commission in the future?
On the question of expenses, on page 4 the covering Memorandum says that in future the expenses will "fall on the Exchequer." That coincides with the Financial Memorandum on the outside of the Bill itself. As I understand it, the immediate expense will be retrieved from the Government in question with whom we are negotiating, and it is only the future expenses that will fall on the Exchequer. The Memorandum states:
The Commission will in this case be doing work which has formerly been done by Government Departments and for which probably they would have to engage a special temporary staff.
In fact, there is not much difference in the expenses to the taxpayer, between the existing machinery and the practice in which we engage a temporary staff and an ad hoc lawyer, and the future activities of the Commission in which we engage, through the Lord Chancellor, an ad hoc chairman and an ad hoc staff to deal with particular matters. If that is the case, there is not such a striking difference between existing practice and the future constitution of the Commission, and we should like to know, in regard to the future, what all the fuss is about.
I think that one can say that for the existing Czechoslovak and Yugoslav agreements the Commission does provide a quasi-judicial body to deal with difficult and teasing subjects, but in the future it seems that the Foreign Office is going back to the machinery and practice which is not very dissimilar from that which prevails today. I do not know whether a satisfactory answer can be given to that, but all that we can say, in accepting the passage of this Bill, is that it has


been well presented for our consideration, and anyone who desires to become an expert on this subject in this House has an easy and clear opportunity of becoming one. I have not attempted in anything I have said to fall into that category, and I hope that we may allow the Bill to have a reasonable passage.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think that the whole House would wish to associate itself with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who said that although the Foreign Office are not often in the habit of coming to this House and presenting Measures of legislation for its consideration, yet when they do, they are in the habit of presenting Bills prepared in a very workmanlike manner. This is one of those Bills. I think that the whole House is indebted to those responsible for the method of presentation of this Bill, the documentation with which it has been presented, and for the fact that in addition to having the Bill ready for our consideration, we also have, which is an admirable practice, the Orders in Council which it is proposed to bring into operation when the Bill has been passed into law. That fact certainly makes it very much easier for those interested in the subject to consider the matter and make a few intelligent observations about it.
It was, no doubt, a great relief to the Government to learn that the Opposition are not proposing to divide the House, and I have no doubt that the Government will be equally delighted to know there is no risk of any back bench opposition or revolt against the Measure. That does not relieve us, however, from the duty of trying to examine the Bill in some detail before it passes into law. I should like, in the first place, to invite the Government to give us a little more information about the realities of the Czechoslovak and Yugoslav claims before this Debate closes. The Minister informed us that it was the duty of the Foreign Office to form some estimate of the total British claims against Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, respectively before the negotiations were entered into, certainly before they were consummated, which led to the signature of the two agreements which were the prelude to the Bill.
Quite obviously, it must be a matter of interest to a great many people to know what is the Government's estimate of the total British claims against the Czechoslovak Government. I propose to confine my remarks to the negotiations and operations with Czechoslovakia, because I have no doubt that other Members will wish to deal with Yugoslavia. All we have so far learned is that the Czechoslovak Government have agreed, following negotiations with the British Government, to make payment by instalments over a period of years of £8 million in respect of British claims arising out of certain measures of nationalisation in Czechoslovakia.
The first question which therefore arises is this. Before that figure of £8 million was agreed upon, what was the estimate, to which the Minister of State has referred, that was reached by the Government's advisers of the total British claims against the Czechoslovak Government? The incidental question which arises is: What was the estimate arrived at by the British Government's advisers of the total British claims against the Yugoslav Government, which claims were, as a result of negotiations, compromised by an agreement with the Yugoslav Government to pay a sum of £4½ million.
I do not think anyone will doubt the wisdom of the British Government having reached an agreement of this kind with the Czechoslovak and Yugoslav Governments. I think we shall find that the total British claims against the Czechoslovak Government, whatever the official estimate may be, are very much in excess of £8 million. I do not know how much they are in excess of that amount, whether it is £10 million, £50 million or even more, but obviously all those interested in such claims must be concerned to have some idea as soon as possible of the approximate percentage by which their claims will be scaled down, if they are admitted, before they participate in the division over a period of years of this £8 million.
Everyone will agree that it was a very prudent matter on the part of the Government to arrange that the Czechoslovak and the Yugoslav Governments should pay global sums to the British Government, and that the British claimants should then have the not easy but relatively simple task of stating their claims before a quasi-judicial Commis-


sion now being set up by the Bill. All these British claimants have been concerned since 1945 to know what their chances are of recovering money for their property, shares, mineral rights, industries and land that were the subject matter of a series of nationalisation decrees in Czechoslovakia.
It is very important that the House should realise that these nationalisation measures in Czechoslovakia, out of which these British claims arise, were not measures passed since the Czechoslovak coup in February, 1948, but were measures of nationalisation on a very large scale that were enacted by the Coalition Government which was in office in Prague after the termination of hostilities with the Hitler regime. These measures of nationalisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), who is particularly interested in this matter, will remember so well, were enacted with the consent of all political parties in those days—the Communists, the Social Democrats, the Radicals, the Centre Party and the others—and were a deliberate part of the policy of that great country.

Mr. Speaker: This is all very interesting, but what has it to do with the Bill?

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and hope to keep myself strictly to the terms of the Bill. The point I was trying to make was that the British claimants, as a result of the Czechoslovak measures of nationalisation, who are now to get compensation out of this sum of £8 million, have hitherto had to rely upon negotiations in Czechoslovakia. They have had to take proceedings in Czechoslovakia. They have been subject to a great many difficulties in trying to establish the validity of their claims and their expenses as British nationals. They have been subject to all kinds of difficulties in the Czechoslovak courts, and they are all very grateful that instead of having to negotiate in future as individual companies or individual British subjects, they can now make their claims before this Commission to participate in this sum of £8 million.
I am anxious to put one or two points to the Attorney-General with regard to the details of the Order in Council, because one of the most important things that this House has to concern itself with is that no British subject who has any

claim against the Czechoslovak Government will be shut out by the provisions of this Bill. It is general knowledge that among those who will participate in this sum of £8 million are a small number of large companies such as J. and P. Coats, Ltd., Borax, Ever Ready, Lever Bros., and Imperial Chemical Industries, all of whom had large assets and interests in Czechoslovakia, which were subject to these nationalisation decrees, and who will, therefore, be able to stake very large claims.
I am not so much concerned with those who can look after themselves, but I am concerned about those individual British subjects living in humble circumstances who have also been affected and prejudiced by these nationalisation measures in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. They are very anxious to find out what they are going to get out of their claims. They will not be pleased to learn that it will be 18 months or so before their claims are fully dealt with. I have a letter here from one such claimant, and I rise to take part in this Debate because I am anxious to know if her claim is covered by this Bill.
It will be noticed that the proposed Order in Council in respect of Czechoslovakia, as I read it, states under paragraph 7 that certain persons shall be qualified to make application to the Commission for the purpose of establishing claims under this Order. The first potential claimant is His Majesty's Government, and it looks to me as if His Majesty's Government may well put in a very sizeable claim, which possibly will swallow up a great deal of this £8 million. Then the Clause deals with certain individuals who were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on 28th September, 1949. Next there are some words in the Order which are irrelevant, because they refer to British protected persons.
The specific question I wish to ask my right hon. and learned Friend is—are those words in paragraph 7 (b) of the proposed Order sufficiently wide to cover all British subjects? I ask that for this purpose. Before we pass this Bill it is important that the House should know how this agreement is being operated in Czechoslovakia. Recently I received a letter from a British lady who is now living in Austria. She had a very modest number of shares in four Czechoslovak


companies, which were nationalised, through her lawyer in Prague she has been asking the Czechoslovak Government to give her compensation for the nationalisation in Czechoslovakia of her property. The Czechoslovak Government have refused to do so on the ground that they entered into this agreement with His Majesty's Government, dated 28th September, 1949, and that she, being a British subject, must, therefore, make her claim here in England to participate in this £8 million. This lady, whose name I will give if it is wanted, and who is over 70 years of age, is living in reduced circumstances and in great difficulty in Vienna. Naturally she is anxious, for she is dependent upon the compensation which she may hope to get out of this fund which is to be administered by this Bill.
If British claims are going to be refused compensation because of this agreement with the British Government, it seems pretty certain that they are eligible for participation in the fund It is also very desirable that the machinery which is being devised by this Bill should enable humble people of modest means, such as the lady to whom I have referred, to have some facilities for getting their claims recognised and dealt with, as well as the large companies with large claims and ample means. I hope we shall find—and I apologise if I am trespassing on the time of the House—that this quasi-judicial tribunal which is being set up, as to the composition of which we have heard very little, will, in the rules which are going to be framed by the Lord Chancellor subject to the approval of the House, devise machinery which makes it as simple as possible for persons of this kind to establish their claims.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer. It arises out of paragraph 17 of the draft Order in Council which is provisionally entitled "Foreign Compensation (Czechoslovak) Order in Council, 1950." It is there provided—if I may paraphrase—that no claimant to participate in this fund shall be prejudiced by the fact that the property in respect of which compensation is being claimed was taken away, not by the nationalisation decrees of 1945 but by the German occupation under Hitler, in 1938. This section is of great importance because it will apply to a great many claims.
Many people who will claim are not in a position to prove that they were directly expropriated by the Czechoslovak nationalisation decrees. Some of them are persons whose property was wrongfully taken from them when Hitler marched into Sudeten Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939. Their title was expunged from the records and replaced by the fictitious title of a Hitler nominee. When the Czechoslovak decrees took effect in 1945 the people whose properties were nationalised in form though not in reality were the German persons or companies who had been in occupation and enjoyment of the property since 1938.
It is essential that this House should assert that British subjects and companies who were enjoying property in Czechoslovakia in 1938, which property was taken away as a result of the Hitler occupation, should not be prejudiced in any way if they are unable to prove that their property was the subject of direct and immediate appropriation by the Czechoslovak nationalisation decrees. One of the difficulties that would have arisen if claims by British subjects and companies had been left for adjudication in the Czechoslovak courts was the proving of matters of this kind.
Now that we are going to set up this Commission to deal with the matter in England, and bearing in mind the obvious difficulty that British claimants will have in adducing evidence of property in 1938, 1945, or even today, I hope that such claimants will not be prejudiced by any inability due to circumstances beyond their control. I hope that the rules which will be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor and submitted to this House for approval will be framed in such a way as to permit claimants who have reasonable proof of suffering damage through nationalisation to have their claims adjudicated. I apologise for having taken up the time of the House on matters of detail, but this is the only opportunity one will have to speak on the Bill before the rules are made. I have put my point of view and I venture to hope that my remarks will be of assistance.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: It was rather amusing to note how the Minister, when bringing the Bill before the House, kept off the subject of the actual amount of money involved


and the amount that has been claimed. For well over a year I have been asking questions on this very subject and always getting evasive replies from the Foreign Office. The Foreign Secretary really summed it up when he said that it was true we were not getting anything like as much on our claim as the United States were getting, and that the reason was that a very considerable amount of Yugoslav gold was held in the United States.
The sum that we are about to get is £4 million, of which, I gather, £400,000 has already been paid. It is obvious that from the Yugoslav point of view we shall not get a very large sum. I hope that at some time soon it will be possible for the Foreign Office—I cannot see why it should not be possible—to let the public know how many claims there have been and how much money has been involved in those claims. That information would at least help the banks and smaller people of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), to work out for themselves what was likely to be the proportion of that amount that their clients would get. It is a very worrying matter to the smaller people. The I.C.I. and persons of that kind can stand the costs involved, but it is not so easy for the lesser people.
There is the question of the expense involved to the Commission. Those expenses are to be drawn to a large extent from the money which has been received up to the moment from the two countries concerned. I hope that there is nothing retrospective in view, and that we have not forgotten that the negotiations for the agreement were carried on for well over a year, presumably at considerable expense, at Claridge's Hotel—or it may have been at Park Street—when the Yugoslav representatives remained over here for an unconscionable time. I hope that those expenses will not be brought into the sums which the Commission are going to draw.
In a case with which I have been concerned, and of which the Foreign Office are aware, of a constituent of mine, much money has already been expended by the lady's solicitors and others who have been working for her in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, with the object of making good her claim. It is not a very easy case because of the international problems

involved and the number of other people who are interested in the matter. On more than one occasion it has been necessary for the lawyers to say to the Foreign Office: "Surely to goodness you can take what we tell you to be the actual facts. We have gone to considerable expense to find them out through our Embassies and people employed by them, yet the Overseas Trade Department are saying that they will now have to look into the matter through their own lawyers and officers." Let us hope that these departments will not start all over again with the object of satisfying themselves by inquiries in Yugoslavia. Let us hope that they will take the findings and the discoveries made by reputable firms in this country. After all, £4 million is not very much, and therefore as little as possible ought to be used in expenses.
There is another little worry. It appears that practically nothing is to happen in regard to these people for 18 months or two years. As the hon. Member for Islington, East, has pointed out, the position is very worrying for many people. It is now well over a year since the agreement was made. The first instalment was paid last November by Yugoslavia. So far as I know, every detail in the case with which I have been concerned is now known to the Foreign Office. Why must we go on waiting for so long? If there is some reason why that should be so, cannot something be done in the way of paying instalments to those who really need it?
Furthermore, there is a Clause under which the Commission is empowered to invest the sum. I take it that at the moment that refers to the £400,000 which has already been paid. Can the Attorney-General assure us that the interest on the invested £400,000 will go to the claimants later on? That would at least be something. It was also stated in another place that when the final closing down of the Commission's work with regard to Yugoslavia and other places takes place, if any sums are left over they will be swallowed up by the Exchequer. Why should that be? I do not know what the sums are likely to be, but surely they could be divided among the remaining claimants who have already proved their cases.
I should like to ask on what basis we shall go to work with regard to the value


of the property. Will it be on a 1939 basis? Will it be on the basis of the value of Yugoslav money? Or will it be on the basis of the date when nationalisation took place? The Bill seems mostly to deal with property nationalised or in some other way taken over by the Yugoslav or Czechoslovak Governments, but war damage may also be involved. There will be the problem of mills or factories which were considerably damaged by the Germans during the occupation of Yugoslavia. When such property was nationalised its value was obviously considerably less after the damage which had been done during the war. On what basis will that be determined?
I particularly refer to this because the Bill points out that anybody who claims must guarantee to give up his claim afterwards. If he gets any compensation he must not claim again and must give up any forms and documents he has which would ensure such a claim. This may operate in other parts of the world later on. War damage compensation paid by Japan in the Philippines may be dealt with in this manner. If a claim for war damage is met, can we be assured that the payment will not just go to the Foreign Government so that our clients over here get nothing out of it? If that is not the case, how is that war damage payment to be regarded in relation to the value of the property? I hope that the Attorney-General will let us know what is to be the basis.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I must apologise to the House quite sincerely for taking part in a Debate the whole of which I have not had the privilege of hearing. I have heard what I can from various points of the compass but, having other appointments outside, I had to leave the Chamber for a time and it may be that I shall commit the Parliamentary indecency of asking for information which has already been given.
I had the privilege of listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) who appeared to me to raise two or three very important points. His first point concerned the question of the rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor. I spent part of my week-end examining the procedure

of the Gas Arbitration Tribunal. That may not be strictly related to the subject which we are discussing now, but it was the instrument which provided that rules of procedure must be made by the Lord Chancellor. They are made as part of his duties under the ordinary process of the Supreme Court, and the sort of rules which he has to lay down are nothing to do with the kind of problems we are discussing now. He lays down rules that claims should be presented by a certain date, that five copies should be submitted to the tribunal for distribution among its members and so on, and that notices can be served by registered post, and a whole series of rules are thus provided.
I am referring to Clause 4, which provides for rules of procedure to be made by the Lord Chancellor. None of the Rules will deal with the very vital matter in which the House ought to be interested today and on which we ought to know something. The procedure of the draft Order is very difficult to master in the limited time now available to us. It refers to an appointed day. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, raised a point of fundamental importance in that connection. We all know what has happened in Czechoslovakia over the last 10 years or so. Many examples of expropriation and confiscation took place long before the measures to which the Bill is directed. There may have been changes in ownership and title long before the appointed day, and changes which took place under force majeure. In these circumstances intending applicants ought to have some guidance as to what they have to establish and how they are to establish it.
There is also the point about valuation. I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hove——

Mr. Teeling: Brighton, Pavilion.

Mr. Hale: I mean, the hon. Member for the Pavilion division of Brighton (Mr. Teeling). I am glad to hear that because it gives a much more popular air. I thought that I was clear on that point and that point only. I understood that the global sum was to be apportioned pro rata to the aggregate claim submitted, but that presents a substantial problem, because it means, presumably,


that the whole apportionment must be delayed until one is satisfied that all the claims are submitted. One must obviously give an ample length of time for the submission of claims so that evidence and material relating to valuation can be collected. I apprehend that the procedure is something like that adopted under the Measure nationalising coal; the submission of collective claims for the ascertainment of the global sum available and then the allocation as between the collective claims of the whole of that sum. Of course, one cannot allocate on the basis of the claims submitted but only, finally, on the basis of the claims accepted. Therefore, presumably, one has to wait, even if there is a payment on account, until the finalisation of the total claims submitted before the matter can be dealt with.
I hoped that we should have some information as to what sort of agreements are being negotiated and as to how many countries, in the opinion of the Government, are likely to be the subject of negotiations at the moment, and also the extent of the interests involved. The House is entitled to that information because we are setting up what will be, virtually, a permanent Commission which will go on to deal with the agreements to be negotiated. Therefore, we have a right to be told the approximate size of the interests involved, the cost likely to be involved in setting up the Commission, how long it is likely to have to sit, what countries we are negotiating with now, and to what extent at the moment some favourable results have been achieved.
Subject to that, I am quite sure that, in general, we are all disposed to welcome the Bill, and, in general, we are very happy that this agreement has ben negotiated, but, of course, the extent of our happiness depends upon a piece of information which I understand that the House has not yet been able to have. It seems vital, and I had hoped that the Minister of State would be able to give it to us before the Debate closed. What is the amount of the claim that we made originally, and to what extent is it thought that the settlement now effected is a fair or reasonable settlement of that claim?
That information is also of vital importance from the point of view of persons who intend to submit claims.

They are entitled to be told whether they are likely to get 5, 10 or 15 per cent. of their claim and so on. They are entitled to consider whether in all the circumstances it is worth going to the expense that would be involved. I know that when I had to advise many people on the question of making claims for development value under the Town and Country Planning Act in general I advised them that, on the whole, it would not be worth while making a claim unless they had a very substantial one. That is exceedingly convenient advice to give, and I am sure that from the point of view of my clients it proved to be most excellent advice. It may be that many people would not wish to embark on the rather long and complex process of a valuation and claim unless they could be given some information as to what the amount now available bears to the total amount of the damage caused by the confiscation. Subject to those questions we can all give this Bill a cordial welcome, but those questions are of some importance and should be answered.

4.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I shall try not to detain the House long in picking up the points which have been raised in the course of the short Debate we have had upon the Bill, but I should like at the outset to say how gratified we are to have heard the welcome which has been given to the Bill and the method of its presentation, both by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and also by those who have spoken from this side of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked, as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), what was intended to be the future scope of this Commission after it had dealt with the distribution of the global sums which have been received or will be received under the agreements with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. It may be that in the comparatively near future similar agreements will be negotiated with other countries providing for global sums to be paid in the settlement of claims arising out of the circumstances of the war and of the political and economic changes that have been taking place in these last five years. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to specify with much particularity what those amounts may be or what countries


may be involved, but it will not require any great exercise of imagination on the part of the right hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friend to appreciate that in Eastern Europe, and indeed in Asia as well, there may be claims which might appropriately be made the subject of agreements with a view to a global settlement of the kind that has been secured with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
It is not intended that the Commission should deal with small, isolated, ad hoc claims that may arise. Indeed, hon. Members may have seen that in the Yugoslav agreement there is a specific exception in regard to one claim which was made the subject of individual settlement, and it may be that from time to time there will be individual claims dealt with in that way. This Commission is intended only to deal with the distribution of the comparatively large sums which may be received under agreements intended to dispose of a large number of claims at one time as part of the general settlement of claim and counter-claim between certain countries.
In that connection the right hon. Gentleman asked what part would be played by the other governments of Commonwealth countries. We negotiated the Yugoslav settlement on behalf not only of the United Kingdom but of the other Commonwealth Governments, and consequently that settlement applies to them as it does to us, and it is for that reason that representatives of the Commonwealth Governments will be enabled under this procedure to take part in the proceedings of the Commission. In the case of Czechoslovakia that was not so. Independent arrangements were made, and consequently the Commonwealth Governments are not interested in the proceedings of the Commission in distributing the amounts received from Czechoslovakia. Whether they will come in again in regard to any future case depends on the same principle, whether we are acting on our own account alone or negotiating as settlement on behalf of the Commonwealth as a whole.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), asked whether the House could be informed in greater detail of what he called the realities of the Yugoslav and Czech agreements. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I apprehend that if I

were to attempt to go into that matter in the same detail as my hon. Friend, you might say that I was out of order in that we are not now discussing the agreements by which these settlements were reached or the negotiations which preceded those agreements. This Bill deals with the events subsequent to the conclusion of those agreements and with the distribution of the amounts which have been received. It will be as far as I can properly go within the Rules if I say that we achieved the best settlement we could of the claims that existed and of the counter-claims that were made on the other side against us and in the circumstances that existed.
That settlement will certainy not be enough to provide anything like a dividend of 100 per cent. on the different claims that are made. The claims will certainly have to be considerably scaled down, and whilst it would be quite impossible for me to indicate any figure with any degree of confidence—and it would be misleading for me now to do so—I would certainly say that it would be most imprudent for anybody to expect under the Yugoslav agreement a dividend of more than, if as much as, 50 per cent. In the case of the Czechoslovak agreement I apprehend that the dividend will be a good deal lower even than that. I am sorry that I cannot give any more accurate guide to the eventual dividend that may be paid but it seemed to us, on the information we had in regard to claims that were made in the first instance, that a great many of them could not be sustained in the figures in which they were put forward. I might also give a warning that when I say not more than 50 per cent. or not more than 30 per cent., I am looking to the figure at which those claims may eventually be assessed, not to the figure which is put in in respect of them in the first instance which may, and as we think often has been, a figure much higher than it would be possible to justify as a legal debt or legal claim.
The effect of the Czechoslovak agreement is, of course, to provide compensation in respect of claims which, under the law of Czechoslovakia, have been extinguished or in respect of property which has been expropriated under that law without the payment of compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, put the case of a lady living in


Austria who is a British subject and who has some small claim. The agreement is intended to cover those British subjects who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Whilst in this case the other Commonwealth Governments have been free to negotiate, I do not know whether they have in fact negotiated similar settlements on behalf of their own citizens. We negotiated only on behalf of the citizens of the United Kingdom.
I hesitate to express any view about that specific case, not knowing more of the details than my hon. Friend gave to the House, but presumably that lady would fall within Article 7 (b) as being not only a British subject but one who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. In that case her claim would rank. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that whatever rules are promulgated under the Bill they will seek to provide a machinery which is as simple and informal as possible and which will be open equally to a small claimant as to the rich. Incidentally my hon. Friend referred to the fact that under Article 7 (a) of the Order in Council there is the possibility of claims against the fund by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. We thought it right to keep that door open, but at present we do not apprehend that there will be any significant claim from the Government against the fund.
If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, with the perspicuity of the trained legal mind, correctly interpreted the intended effect of Article 17 of the draft Order in Council. Consequently I need not follow him further about that matter except again to say that we shall frame—and I follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West, on this point—the rules of procedure in such a way as to ensure that the procedure will be as simple as possible, consistent with the claims being properly authenticated and proved.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) asked whether the expenses which it is contemplated under the Bill will be deductible from the compensation funds would cover expenses incurred prior to the passage of the Bill in connection with the negotiation of the agreements. That would not be so. The Bill can cover only those expenses which are incurred by the Commission itself in

dealing with the distribution of the global sums which have already been ascertained under the agreements.
I think the House may feel assured that the procedure will be most economical in comparison with that which has been followed hitherto. The practice of the mixed claims commissions that dealt with problems of this kind in the past was to deduct 5 per cent. from the amount allowed in respect of each claim. Five per cent. from the amount to be distributed under the two agreements which are involved would be over £500,000, and I think it is quite certain that the expenses of the Commission will be nothing like as much as that. Again, it is difficult to make an estimate, but I should expect that the expenses would be nearer one per cent. than five per cent., and consequently the procedure will effect a very considerable saving.
So far as concerns the question of delay, to which the hon. Member also referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, really provided the answer. There are something like 1,800 claims which, I think, will fall to be investigated under the two agreements. Until all of them have been examined and established in some particular amount or rejected altogether, it will be impossible to fix the dividend payable in respect of each claim. As the House appreciates, claimants will receive such a proportion of their own claim as is finally admitted as the total admitted claims bear to the amount distributable; and that is bound to take some little time to determine. It took a very considerable time under the old procedure. I think that some of the various commissions went on for four years. We hope that the procedure of this Commission will be very much more expeditious.
The valuation of the claims will be as at the date at which the property was expropriated or the debt was extinguished under the particular legislation which is referred to in the draft Orders in Council; but, as the hon. Member will see in Article 19 of both the draft Orders, the Commission is given a very wide discretion indeed in regard to the principles which it adopts in valuing the particular claims, and it will be left to the Commission in the light of all the circumstances to do the best it can to achieve justice in regard to them.
I think that that answer deals also with the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West: the dates which are material are those laid down in the draft Orders in Council referring to the relevant legislation extinguishing that method of expropriating property. My hon. Friend appreciates that it is only the claims in regard to matters with which those Statutes deal which are the subject of the global settlement under the agreements and which are, consequently, within the scope of these Orders in Council. I hope that, with these explanations, the House will now be prepared to give this little Bill its Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Royle.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN COMPENSATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Commission for the purpose of registering and determining claims to participate in compensation under agreements with foreign Governments and of distributing any compensation received under any such agreements, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Commission constituted under the said Act, including the remuneration and allowances of the members, officers and servants of the Commission;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer by the Commission of the amount of such of the said expenses as may be directed by Order in Council under the said Act."—(The Attorney-General.)

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I think it will be agreed on all sides of the House that this is a very modest and non-controversial Measure, although it is a very useful one. It is perhaps a sign of the value of earlier legislation on this subject that, after a comprehensive study of the whole problem of the recruitment of midwives which was carried out by the working party, so very few of their recommendations required any legislative change. These recommendations cover a wide field, but the great majority of them are concerned with administrative matters rather than with any legislative change. Although we can undoubtedly look forward, I think, to a non-controversial passage of the Bill, there was, perhaps, some distance in the past no subject which suffered from so many of what the working party called "legislative miscarriages" as did this particular subject. When the 1902 Act was passed, it was quite a great legislative success that it finally got through to the Statute Book.
There has been, as we would all agree, a great and valuable change in the status and standard of work of midwives, which is reflected, for example, in the very great improvement over this period in the rates of maternal mortality. For example, if one refers to the figures for the beginning of the century, maternal mortality rates in the year 1900 were 4.81 as against the latest figure which I have for 1949 of.98. I think it is fair to make the point that although there has been progress throughout that period, the progress during the last few years has been particularly rapid.
The 1902 Act, which as I have said was a legislative victory, was followed by a series of other Measures. The 1918, 1926 and 1936 Acts have all added further safeguards to the profession. I should like to say a word or two about some of the recommendations of the working party before I turn to the detailed consideration of this modest Measure, because I want it to be understood on both sides that the legislative


changes which we are making are not obscuring in any way the important administrative work which is now going forward.
I should like to pick out one or two of the recommendations as typical of some of the work that is being done, to explain to the House the developments which are taking place. Hon. Members will probably remember that in the Report of the Working Party on Nurses it was suggested that the Central Midwives Board might well combine with the General Nursing Council. This was considered, of course, by the midwives' working party, who recommended strongly that this suggestion of the nurses' working party should be rejected. We have come to the conclusion that the midwives' working party are quite right.
It would be a great mistake to mix up the problems of ordinary health nursing with the work of the midwife. The midwife is concerned with the most natural and ordinary human activity of all and it would be very wrong if we were in any way to suggest that the midwife's work should be regarded as merely a part of general nursing. The general nurse inevitably is concerned with the unusual, with ill-health, with the abnormal, whereas the midwife must necessarily be concerned mainly with the normal and indeed the very source of life itself. Undoubtedly, if a general body were set up there would be a danger, at least, that the midwives' side of this general body would be overweighted by the general nursing side.
Several other recommendations were made, and I want to mention one or two in order to explain the work we have been doing. In recommendation 24 it is suggested by the working party for midwives that refresher courses should be made obligatory for all practising mid-wives. I am glad to say that the Royal College of Midwives has now increased the number of places in its refresher courses and employing authorities are organising refresher courses so that increasing numbers can attend voluntarily, although it may be some time before provision is sufficient to enable the rules which make refresher courses compulsory to be brought into operation fully.
A further suggestion was made that the existing midwife teachers' courses should

be expanded and improved courses provided. An interesting development has recently taken place in the establishment of a new midwife teachers college, a residential college, at Kingston and full-time courses of six months begin this month. This is only a small start, but a very valuable step towards carrying out of the recommendation which was made.
A further matter of interest to the House is one of the recommendations of the working party that the Medical Research Council should be asked to set up a committee to solve the problem of finding a more effective method of administration of analgesia by mid-wives—a matter discussed in this House a little time ago. The Medical Research Council, as I think is generally known, have set up a committee to consider more effective methods. We have not yet had their report, but we hope that it will be available fairly shortly and we are most anxious that these other methods, for example, trilene, may be possible for more general use than they are today. In that regard it is of interest that it has also proved possible to allow the use of pethidine more generally than was possible some time ago. It was scheduled as a dangerous drug in 1947, but by a recent amendment, operating from 1st April this year, pethidine can now be procured and administered by mid-wives acting on their own responsibility, subject to certain safeguards. That was another point raised in this House when we were discussing the availability of different forms of analgesia.
I ought also to mention that there has been a very great development of the use of analgesia during the last year. We now have amongst the midwives practising in England and Wales some 72 per cent. trained in the use of analgesia, which is a very great advance on the position a year ago and makes clear that we should be able to complete the training of midwives within a reasonable period of time.
I am also glad to be able to say that there has been a great increase in the number of domiciliary cases which now receive gas and air analgesia. The figure in 1948 was approximately 80,000 cases and that went up in 1949 to 128,000 cases, an increase of 60 per cent. We can say that well over half, probably nearer


two-thirds, of all the domiciliary cases attended by midwives alone receive analgesia now as against the figure of only 8 per cent. referred to in the report of the working party, so we can see that there has been a very great development.
Another of the conclusions and recommendations made by the working party was that there should be general provision of cars for the use of domiciliary midwives. As I think hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware, we made arrangements last year for a special priority scheme by which domiciliary midwives would be able to get earlier delivery of motor cars for their use, and we are glad to be able to say that that scheme works very well. We have had few complaints from midwives of not being able to secure the cars they need, particularly in rural areas. I am sorry we have not been able to extend that to others who also have need of motor cars in the nursing service, but I think we have been able to meet most of the claims of midwives in that regard. Many of the recommendations made in the report concern conditions of service, which are under consideration by the Whitley Council.
I now turn to the main provisions of this Bill. One of the recommendations of the working party was that the time has come for a review of the constitution of the Central Midwives Board, not that they complained in any way of the work that the Board have done. Indeed, we are all very appreciative of the great advances that have been made, which are in large measure due to the work which the Board have done. But we feel the time has now arrived when midwives might properly be given greater representation on the Board than they have today. At the moment there are only five midwives represented out of a total of 14 members on the Board. That was a matter to which the working party called attention and to which we would wish eventually to secure some amendment.
Clause 1 gives power to the Minister to revise the constitution of the Board. At the moment any alteration can only be made on the initiative of the Board themselves. It is proposed that we should consult the different organisations affected and then lay draft orders before the

House, which will enable discussion before the draft orders actually become operative. That gives time for discussion and, if necessary, they can be withdrawn and replaced, should that be the wish of the House. The other Clauses are of minor significance.
Clause 2 provides for incorporation of the Boards so that they can have the necessary statutory power to deal with their own property. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for the acceptance for English certification of midwives who have already been certified in Scotland and Northern Ireland, or vice versa. Clause 5 makes provision similar to that made last year in the Nurses Act for the acceptance, subject to suitable safeguards and further training where necessary, of midwives trained abroad.
Clause 6, rather surprisingly, caused a certain amount of discussion in another place. As originally drafted, that Clause merely proposed to give power to the boards to make rules regarding a standard uniform to be worn by mid-wives, which would be protected against use by any unauthorised persons. We thought that to be a fairly innocuous sort of provision but one that could quite fairly be asked for by the Central Mid-wives Board, who were anxious to obtain this power because it is one which is already in the hands of the General Nursing Council in respect of the nursing side. It seemed a reasonable provision to make to add to the status of the midwife.
However, an Amendment was carried in another place which sought to ensure that midwives should be entitled to wear this national uniform even if the local employing authority required a local uniform to be worn. This is a matter which can be more usefully discussed in Committee to see whether any changes should be made. I believe hon. Members may have received representations about the matter. I would only make the point that I have just had put into my hands today an attractive, romantic and rather glamorous advertisement from a certain tailor showing what the new national uniform might well look like. It is an interesting tribute to the advance of the profession of midwifery that such an attractive leaflet as this can properly be produced at this time. Certainly it could not have been produced a good many years ago.

Mr. Messer: Will my hon. Friend say whether the badge will be a stork?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Clause 7 withdraws the obligation on the Board to publish a complete roll of midwives every five years. It has been a most expensive requirement upon the Central Midwives Board. The information it provided was highly unreliable because, for example, on the English roll there are some 70,000 names but in fact only approximately 17,000 of that number are at present in practice. The obligation to publish annually the list of practising midwives is to be preserved. This will be more up to date.
Clause 8 gives power to local authorities to provide residential accommodation for pupil midwives in training, which many local authorities very properly wished to provide and were not able previously to do. This was recommended by the working party, as was the provision in Clause 10 exempting midwives from jury service. In fact, midwives have, on individual application, always been exempted from jury service, but we thought it only right that complete exemption should be given as a statutory right rather than on individual application.
From what I have said I think it is clear that this is a useful though very limited Measure. I think it is also clear that we are at the same time carrying forward the perhaps more important administrative changes and developments that have been recommended in this report and which have indeed been the subject of examination previously. Hon. Members on both sides of the House can be assured that we are doing our utmost, both by this minor Measure and by the administrative changes, to ensure the raising still further of the very high standard which we have already achieved in our maternity services.

5.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure that we shall all agree that this is a useful and non-controversial Bill, and that we must extend our congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary for adhering so strictly to the non-controversial aspect of any subject which is comprised in the Ministry of Health. There are, however, many non-controversial subjects, and this is one of them. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this Bill

marks a stage further in the steady progress which has been going on subsequent to that series of legislative miscarriages to which he drew attention.
The attention of this House has now, for over half a century, been given to this subject, and the rise in the status of mid-wives has been not inferior to the rise in the status of the nursing profession which has also gone on at the same time. We are all extremely interested and glad to know that the fall in maternal mortality and infantile mortality, to which the Parliamentary Secretary paid tribute, has continued and has indeed become more rapid of recent years. The Registrar-General for Scotland, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will recollect, recently drew attention to this, and stressed particularly the effect of the sulphanonmide drugs in the improvement which was taking place; although the improvement in general education has undoubtedly also had a great deal to do, with it.
One should declare one's interest in this matter, and unlikely as the House might think it, I am a certified midwife. It has been said that the House of Commons can do anything except turn a man into a woman. Here we see it trying its hand at the job. My right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) is also an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, so she has at any rate been recognised by the medical profession as having in the past taken a great interest in these matters.
There was much point in what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the mid-wives' role; it required revision. The large numbers who appeared on it both in England and Scotland were a proof of that. Most of those girls were engaged in ordinary nursing and were not available for midwifery work. I believe that during the war young women were not allowed to take their midwifery certificate unless they undertook to do two years in midwifery practice afterwards. I do not know if that rule still applies; I take it that it has been waived? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can give us information on that point.
We were glad to find that it was possible to discuss the vexed question of analgesia in childbirth without the heat and fury which this subject seems sometimes to generate.


I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) is well satisfied with the progress which has been made—we will not at this moment attempt to allocate credit for that to either side of the House—and does not propose on this occasion to enter into the lists. Seriously, the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary gave, both about the increase in training and the increase in domiciliary treatment, were of great interest and will, I am sure, be of great advantage to the mothers of this country.
It has been brought out by medical opinion that the percentage of injury at birth tends rather to rise, and oddly enough, to rise more in the higher social brackets than in the lower. It is not always certain that instrumental interference or too lavish a use of various kinds of remedies is always as great an advantage either to the mother or to the child as it might appear to be at the time. The birth of a baby is a natural function which should not be too readily treated as a kind of surgical operation, which it certainly is not.
I was also glad to find that the question, of cars was apparently being dealt with satisfactorily and that the priorities for midwives was working so well that no complaint at all had been received from any midwife on any waiting list for a car. That is a remarkable achievement on which I congratulate the Minister. I do not know of any other class of His Majesty's citizens to which that could apply—certainly not to doctors so far as I know. I was reminded at the time of that charming passage in "Puck of Pook's Hill," which perhaps the Minister may remember, where the children are talking over the plague—it is a long time ago, a story of our fathers of old—and as a sort of motif through it comes the maternity nurse cycling down to the little house in the village to help and cycling away; while the children are sitting on the actual plague stone to which provisions were brought by those willing to relieve the people in danger from this infectious and terrible illness, and to which afterwards persons returned to take away the provisions which had been left for them by kindly people.
We have progressed since those days but, as was said in that story, the fundamental thing was the feeling of sympathy

of spirit and the courage shown by our fathers of old. Although we have progressed in many ways, unless we can maintain and increase the sympathy and human feeling which lies at the bottom of this whole Measure we shall not get the great advantage out of it that we hope. I am sure that every step is worth taking to ensure that, along with the greater efficiency, no diminution in humanity is taking place. We greatly welcome this unassuming but valuable Bill and we trust it will have an easy passage through the House. We hope that minor points such as uniform will be adjusted in Committee—it might be a most suitable subject for a free vote—and that it will not be long before this Measure is on the Statute Book.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I hope that this short Bill will be regarded by the midwives as the gesture of appreciation by this House, and indeed by the whole nation, for the work they have done. The problems of childbirth and young children are very different from what they were a few years ago. Childbirth is no longer so dangerous, and in many cases young children, instead of crying all day, hardly cry at all. As has been mentioned, the death rate of mothers in childbirth is a quarter of what it was 20 years ago; and the death rate of infants has gone down, although not quite in the same proportion. For this we have to thank the midwives, at any rate in part, although they would be the first to admit that there are many other facors.
All doctors must also be very grateful to the midwives, because although not all of us would be ready to admit it, we all I think without exception learned how to deal with a normal case of childbirth from a midwife. Most of use, both in hospital and also when we went out into the district around, were taught what to do by midwives. Of course we have learned since and some of us may still remember how to deal with abnormal cases but the care of normal cases, almost without exception, we learned from a midwive.
I fear that midwives are labouring under a sense of grievance today. They are not quite sure of their status and they are not too certain that they are able to


do as good work as they once did. The report of the working party on midwives to which reference has been made, makes that clear and I will read one short passage:
It seems to us that the assets and liabilities of doctor and midwife are complementary and that the arrangement under the new health service, with two working in partnership, may prove to be a good one. It would only be successful, however, if both parties recognised their partnership. The doctor must accept the midwife as his fellow practitioner and not attempt either to relegate her to the status of his handmaiden or to displace her unnecessarily from her position of authority in the patient's eyes.
Then the report goes on, quite rightly, to say that the midwife on her part must not be over-possessive about her patients. I am not quite sure that in every area the position of the midwife is as satisfactory as it was before 5th July, 1948. What happened before that date was that when a midwife got into difficulties and wanted a doctor to help her she asked the patient to whom she should send and she sent for that doctor. Usually the patient had no choice, and the midwives, at any rate in the London area, soon got to know the capable doctors and sent for one of them. But now things are different because a doctor contracts to look after a woman in child birth and is paid for it, and a midwife who is in difficulty has to send for that doctor. The doctor may be an exceptionally capable obstetrician, and many of them are. But some of them are not and time may be wasted before a specialist is called.
I do not want to suggest that it is only the midwives who fear this loss of status. I have in my hand a report which is by far the "best seller" for the medical profession today. It is a report by an Australian doctor, Dr. Collings, and it is called, "General Practice in England today." It was prepared after a very careful investigation. Dr. Collings inquired into the work of doctors in many parts of England. He worked with them for a time and got to know their difficulties and problems. This is what he says:
All the midwives, local authority doctors, and consultant obstetricians with whom I have spoken expressed the hope that the G.P.'s"—
that is general practitioners—
who are now booking midwifery cases will leave the actual work to the midwives and clinics.

That suggests that the apprehension as to status of the midwives, and the capacity for doing their best for their patients which I know some of them feel, is not entirely groundless; and I am glad that this little Bill will, at any rate, help them in some ways to raise their status.
Most bodies in control of the various professions have a majority of representatives of those professions. As has already been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Central Midwives Board as present constituted is composed of 14 members. Of these, five may be mid-wives, and four must. But the General Nursing Council, a corresponding body, is different. That is composed of 34. Seventeen are elected by the nurses and, naturally, they will be nurses, sisters, matrons or people with nursing training. Of the other 17, six must be nurses.
Clauses 1 and 2 will be welcomed by midwives, because of the capacity which they give for the Ministry to receive the approval of this House in granting mid-wives better representation on the Central Midwives Board. They will thus be in a better position to put their case. It is wrong that a professional body like this should have a maximum representation of five out of 14. It does not show that we appreciate the status of the midwife and her importance to the nation.
Clause 8 gives power to the local supervising authority to provide residential colleges for pupil midwives. There are not many districts in which the midwife can receive all her practical training. She must have practical training which involves not only hospital training but work in the homes of patients. Not many hospitals are capable of giving such a complete training to midwives. If mid-wives are to be trained with nurses in the nurse training schools, they will be hopelessly outnumbered and likely to be regarded as second-rate nurses or poor relations. Except as regards preliminaries, it is most desirable that they should be trained separately. There is much to be said for all students of various faculties working together for part of their time and living in the same place, so as to enjoy university life. But I imagine that it would be considered undesirable for midwives to mix with all and sundry in view of the extreme danger of infection to the mothers in the work in which they are engaged.
I do not want to deal with the vexed question of uniforms for midwives. Apparently, that subject occupied most of the interest in another place. It was the only question upon which they thought it necessary to divide. But in passing, I would say that the midwife should have some distinctive uniform. She has to go, at all times of day and night, into all sorts of places. She ought to be recognised as a midwife and not mistaken for a home help or a school attendance officer. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that this was a Committee point. It will be dealt with there, and no doubt careful consideration will be given to the question.
I welcome this Bill. I hope that the midwives will regard it as a Measure which does something to improve their status, but I regret that there is nothing in it to permit a midwife to call in, when necessary, a doctor who she can be assured knows more about midwifery than she does herself and who can be of real help to her.

5.45 p.m.

Dr. Hill: The Parliamentary Secretary said, in effect, that this was a small, not unimportant and non-contentious Bill. I have no doubt that it will remain non-contentious if we resist the temptation to enter clinical, obstetrical and other fields. His remarks about the growth in status and value of the midwifery profession will be widely shared not only on all sides of the House but in all parts of the Health Service.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) thought fit to release a hare which he may wish to send scuttling through the discussion. On that point, I believe that the present system under which a woman selects her doctor in advance—the doctor of her choice, that doctor in most cases being on the approved list for the purpose and remaining liable to be called in on the confinement, or being free to attend the confinement if he thinks fit—is a substantial improvement on the old system under which, all too often, doctors were called in in an emergency and saw the patient for the first time when attending in that emergency.
I would remind the hon. Member for Barking that, to a substantial extent, the urge for the present system arose in

the minds of the women themselves. They believed that, in a satisfactory maternity service, the individual citizen should have, as one of the benefits of the service, the right to be attended by her own doctor through the ante-natal period and, if necessary, in the confinement.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I should like to remind the hon. Member, however, that it was always regarded as one of the conditions for this new arrangement that there should be a general practitioner obstetrical panel, sufficiently small to enable enough experience to be obtained in confinement by the general practitioner, and that the object of a scheme might be defeated if too many general practitioners put their names down to the panel.

Dr. Hill: In reply to the Minister, I would say that it does not necessarily prove excellence in all areas for the number to be small; but I agree with his general proviso that those whose names appear on the approved list should, in the nature of the circumstances and the opportunities of the area, be able to enjoy sufficient continuing practice to maintain their skill in obstetrics. Subject to that proviso, it is clearly desirable in the public interest, and in accordance with the wishes of the women, that they should have the services of midwife and approved doctor working in collaboration.
The only other point upon which I should like to comment is that to which attention will no doubt be directed in the Committee stage—the vexed question of uniform. The single point I want to make is that, as Clause 6 empowers the Central Midwives Board to design an approved uniform, it is not unreasonable that the midwife, being required by her employing authority to wear a uniform, should have the option of wearing a nationally approved and designed uniform, and that the should not be in the position, there being a nationally approved uniform, of being required by her employing authority to wear a different uniform. There is no more in the point than that, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist any natural temptation which may come to him to oppose an Amendment which has been inserted in another place. From what I have been informed—and I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself is making


inquiries—this Amendment causes general satisfaction among midwives, and I therefore hope that the Minister will find it possible to leave the wording as it now Stands.
Subject to those general observations, I am sure that this is a very useful little Measure, and that an indication of the new status of the midwife may be found in the Minister's intention to give mid-wives a majority upon the body which will look after the service of midwifery in future. If I misunderstood the Parliamentary Secretary when he commended the report of the working party on that point, and reminded us that the Minister himself would subsequently decide the constitution of the body, I hope that I interpret him aright when I say that this growth of status would find expression in the number of midwives upon the Central Midwives' Board.

5.52 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am sure that the midwives themselves would be the first to recognise that this Bill, very modest though it appears to be, is a recognition of the high regard in which they are held, not only by the profession as a whole, but by everyone in the country. All of us who have done active medical work in the country have a very high regard for their ability and devotion, while those of us who had had 25 years of work before we laid down our duties or handed them over to others can remember the great change indeed in the general conditions and status of midwives throughout the country.
I remember as a young man finding a very different type of midwife available where I then practised, than is now available. They were elderly women, with no real training, and, although they did the best they could, they had no knowledge of obstetric technique. They were harassed and over-busy people, doing too much work and seeing too many cases, and it was then their custom to call out the practitioner as soon as they possibly could, hoping that he would produce the gruesome instruments which we normally use in such cases to get the confinement over quickly. Very often, the room was full of people, and everybody was full of despair.
Now, we know that that is not the way in which these things should be done.

Today, we have people trained to keep a doctor in abeyance, and if anything good has come out of the modern training in midwifery it is that the trained midwife today feels fully competent, not only to do her own job, but also has unlimited patience and the knowledge of how it should be done. All of us would agree that there are only two conditions that require hurry or speed, and I will not mention them, because this is not the place to do so. Apart from these two complications the doctor, when called in, does well not to hurry. The longer he takes before he arrives, the better for the mother and the child.
I was interested to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, very rightly speaking from his own personal knowledge, saying that birth is a perfectly natural function, which, of course, indeed it is, and he then went on to claim that he was a midwife. I think we must remember that even Government Departments become midwives, and very good ones too, for all of us who have attended confinements and have done much of this work know that a radical change was noted after two or three years of war had passed. We found that women of all ages began to show themselves much healthier and stronger, and were thus able to deliver themselves much more easily than before and with far fewer complications. I have no hesitation in saying that the medical advisers who advised the Minister of Food, and the Minister of Food himself who carried out that advice, have been responsible for carrying out a good deal of the improvement in midwifery throughout the country.
Some mention has been made of the question of analgesia, which is no longer a contentious one, because we realise that this matter is going through very well. I think that a compliment was paid to the midwives of this country when we were able to offer the use of pethedine, which certainly produces a very great reduction of pain and a great deal more comfort.
A great deal with which I am in agreement has been said by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) and the Minister of Health himself, although I found all three saying things in which they differed from one another.


I think it is quite true, as the hon. Member for Barking suggested, that it is not always perhaps the most skilled man who is necessarily sent for by the midwife today. Equally, I would say to the hon. Member for Barking that I could make out a case for favouritism having been shown in the past by mid-wives who sent for their own favourite doctor rather than some other and equally skilled man. The hon. Member for Luton also discussed this point, and it is a point on which we have to be particularly careful.
I should like to see the organisation and administration run something like this. I think the woman should choose her own doctor, although we must recognise that she is not always the best person to know who is the most skilled man. Nevertheless, she should have that freedom of choice, but the midwife, if the case is a complicated one, should have the right to ask for a second opinion immediately. In that way, whether it is expensive or not, we could make certain that nothing should go wrong in the ultimate.
Like every other hon. Member, I am very happy that this Bill is not a contentious one, and I can hardly imagine that there can be much discussion upon it even on the Committee stage. I hope that the uniform will be so attractive that people will cease to go to the cinema to see their favourite film stars, and I see no reason why not. Once upon a time, the uniforms of nurses were very up to date, but we are now accepting more archaic forms and retaining the customs of the Middle Ages. We believe that the best sartorial means should be employed to this purpose, and I see no reason why these young women should not wear a uniform as attractive as themselves and one which will show them off as the very charming creatures they are.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: One of the advantages of this Parliament—which has very few—is that an unspectacular Bill of this nature can obtain a rather higher priority than it could hope to do in normal times. I am told that this Bill is virtually an agreed Measure with the Central Midwives' Board. But the Parliamentary Secretary would be the first to agree, I think, that

that in no way detracts from the duty of this House to examine it carefully, and, if we can, to improve it in Committee. I was glad that the Parliamentary Secretary began his remarks with what I regard as, perhaps, the most important issue—although not actually in the Bill itself—that can be discussed this afternoon, that is, whether the Government were right or wrong to accept the opinion of the working party on midwives in opposition to the opinion of the working party on nurses, that there should be an amalgamation between the General Nursing Council and the Central Midwives' Board.
I was glad that we heard more this afternoon than was said in another place on this matter, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I say that I still find the reasons given by the working party on nurses more convincing on this matter. It seems to me difficult to reconcile the argument of the midwives' working party that they should be entirely separated from the General Nursing Council, with the other recommendation made by them that only a State registered nurse should go on to take the nurse's certificate. However, if they are happy and satisfied with the position—and I think they are—we might leave it at that.
Under Clause 1 of this Bill we are making two changes. The first change, that is, from the Order in Council procedure to the Statutory Instrument, with a draft laid before this House, is one which everybody approves. I am less happy about the second change, and perhaps the Minister or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might give us a reply on this point. I am less happy because it seems to me that the initiative has passed from the Central Midwives' Board to the Minister. The position under the 1918 Act is that on the representation—and only on that representation—of the Central Midwives' Board to the Privy Council, could changes be made. The procedure now is that the Minister, after consultation, will make what changes he decides are necessary. It may be that there is some statutory reason why it would be improper for a body such as the Central Midwives' Board to initiate changes to be laid before this House by way of a draft Statutory Instrument, but, whatever the reason, I should be glad to be informed of it.
I now come to the question of uniform. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government will have proposals to make during the Committee stage. I thought when this matter was being discussed in another place that the arguments were, in fact, very nicely balanced, although I felt that the balance of argument was just, though only just, on the side of the Amendment. It is not a ditch in which I have any particular desire to die, nor, I imagine has the Minister. It may be that when we reach the Committee stage what is called the "British genius for compromise" will find a solution.
The only other point I wish to make is that if either in this Parliament or another, there is time to consolidate the Midwives' Acts, that would be something of great service and of great value. When this Measure reaches the Statute Book they will stretch from 1902 to 1950, and there are many Statutes which one has to look up if one wants to follow the whole story. The working party recommended that such a consolidation should be effected. I hope it will be done.
This, of course, is a machinery Bill as, indeed, was the nurses' Bill last year. But although it is a machinery Bill, it may well—partly because of the certification Clauses and partly because of the other improvements which we are making—add to the number of midwives in practice. There are still some areas in which the number is far too small. If we are to reduce the case-load to 55 a year—which was the recommendation of the working party—or even to 66 a year, which was, I think, the recommendation of the Rushcliffe Committee, then it will be necessary for 300 or 400 more women than at present to enter the profession each year. In the hope that the Bill, however small, may do something to improve that position, I am sure we all welcome it and wish it a speedy passage to the Statute Book.

6.6 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: It is with some trepidation that I enter this Debate because all those who have so far spoken, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), have considerable medical knowledge to assist them. I know that my hon. Friend has also

studied in considerable detail the social services of this country. My purpose in intervening is partly, perhaps, in the capacity of being for the third time a proud father, but mainly because I have a considerable interest in protecting the Queen's Institute of District Nurses. I very much hope that when we come to the Committee stage their interests will be considered.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) made the rather surprising remark that Government Departments became midwives at times. The trouble is, I think, that complications so often set in that even Statutory Instruments are not sufficient to put them right. I think he is quite right in saying—although we ought, rightly, to praise them very highly for the work they have done—that there are other factors which have brought down the infant mortality rate very considerably. Nutrition is obviously one of them.
I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, mentioned the constitutional point about the Privy Council. No one in another place gave any reason for this change in procedure, nor did the Parliamentary Secretary today. It seems to me, as my hon. Friend said, that the Minister now has considerably more power than he had in the past, and I should very much like to know the reason for the change. It may be a perfectly good one, which I am prepared to accept. I do not think this Bill is at all controversial, except on the matter of uniform. On the constitutional side, I think the Privy Council has a wealth of experience which ought to be of value in this matter, and I regret the passing of that body.
In introducing the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly stressed that there are other very important things to be done in the country so far as midwifery is concerned. The Bill by itself will not meet the real need as stressed in the working party's report, that is, the urgent need for an increase in the numbers of those entering training. I certainly do not agree with the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) about separating the training of nurses and of mid-wives. I should have thought that a common basic training was necessary before branching out into either midwifery or general nursing. The report itself is


quite voluble on that matter, particularly paragraphs 136, 137 and 138, which deal with basic training. I fully endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, about welcoming the decision not to merge the Central Midwives' Board with the General Nursing Council. At the same time, I still think that, on the training side, there should be a common basic training.
There is one point I wish particularly to draw to the Minister's attention. It has not so far been mentioned in this Debate, and I am not sure that it is covered in the working party's report. It is that since the introduction of the National Health Service Act there has been a quite considerable change in the common practice of those expecting babies. In other words, they have been going into nursing homes and maternity homes far more often than they did in the past. That means, of course, that there is a slight reduction in the need for more midwives. In fact, there has been a remarkable change in my constituency—a change of as much as 40 per cent. Ninety per cent. of mothers used to have their babies at home and now only 50 per cent. do. That is high praise for the National Health Service Act.
I welcome that side of it very much, but it is important that we should make quite clear that that has been happening. It has been happening elsewhere as well as in my constituency, and it means that if we are not very careful there will be some discouragement to new midwives. The need for midwives is just as great as ever. The ante-natal and post-natal attention given has tended to lengthen in recent years. The more midwives there are, the better the attention that can be given to mothers both before and after the birth. I hope that the Minister will keep watch and see that statistics about more mothers going into maternity homes will not lead to discouragement in the recruitment of midwives. I consider it one of the most important forms of recruiting in nursing.
I am a little disconcerted by what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about uniform. It has left the House in considerable doubt as to what he is going to do. He has not said whether he will put down a Government Amendment to deal with the Amendment inserted in

another place. I ask that the Under-Secretary for Scotland, who is to reply, should indicate the intention of the Government to the considerable number of interested bodies outside.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is only fair to leave some interesting topic of this kind for discussion on the Committee stage, when we can have opinions from Members on all sides.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am all for interesting discussions on the Committee stage. I have sat on too many committees, where discussions have not been interesting, not to welcome the suggestion. But I hope the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady will indicate whether it is the intention of the Government to put down an Amendment to restore the Bill to its original state as it was when presented in another place.
These outside bodies are extremely interested. Certainly, the County Councils' Association will be interested. As they are the association of the local authorities mainly concerned, I hope the Minister will bear that in mind. They have approved the insertion of the Amendment. This is a good Measure and it will help considerably in the long run. I do not think we can expect great results at an early date. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary meant what he said when he implied, in his opening remarks, that the Ministry have this matter of recruiting very much at heart and are pressing forward with it. Until that is done the full value of the Bill will not be realised.

6.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): It is good to find a Measure before this House that receives such universal approval as this little Measure has received today.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), when he opened for the Opposition, took up a point made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Figures had been given about the decrease in infant mortality. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that much of that decrease can be attributed to drugs and to education, but I think we can also claim that much of it is also due to the much better standard of nutrition among many of the working mothers of this country.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) regretted the disappearance of the Privy Council as the body responsible for making Orders on the constitution of the Boards. He must have been under a misapprehension when he raised that point because, by the Ministry of Health Act of 1919, the Ministry took over the powers of the Privy Council in that respect. I think he has a genuine fear, but I am sure that the fact that this Bill gives the House a chance to discuss any provision the Minister may like to make and vote on it, would give the safeguard for which the hon. and gallant Member is looking. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened for the Opposition also wanted to know whether we still had the war-time provision whereby a nurse would only be accepted for training as a midwife if she was prepared to serve two years immediately afterwards as a midwife. That provision has been taken out. It was a war-time provision.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised the question of whether there was perhaps a too lavish use of analgesia. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in his speech that a committee had been set up to go into this whole matter to find out what would be the proper and best use of analgesia. The Parliamentary Secretary gave figures for England and Wales. We have here the figures for Scotland, and I am sure the right hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) would be glad to have them. We find that practising midwives qualified to administer analgesia on 31st December of last year in domiciliary practice were over 700 in Scotland, and there were over 400 in institutions. That was round about 50 per cent. of practising midwives. The number had increased greatly during that year and we are very hopeful that, at least by the end of 1951, every midwife in Scotland will be trained in the use of analgesia.
I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed an article that appeared in the "Glasgow Herald" of today's date. It is a report of a speech by Dr. Bruce Dewar, of Dumfries, to the Royal College of Midwives (Scottish Council). He gave the increase in numbers of those now trained in the use of analgesia and finished with the words:

You will agree, therefore, that the response has been immediate and whole hearted and should certainly allay any public misgivings as to any shortcomings, in Scotland at least, in the rapid development of an all-embracing analgesia service.
That statement by an eminent doctor and the figures I have given, do show that the Department of Health for Scotland and the Medical Officer of Health for Scotland have been taking real steps indeed to deal with this subject.
Many questions have been raised about uniform. It seems to be the only part of this Bill on which there appears to be divergence of opinion. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely wanted me to say categorically whether the Government would put down an Amendment which, in effect, would deal with the Amendment accepted in another place. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member any information at present. We must leave it until the Committee stage, where it will be considered. As my hon. Friend said, since it is the only thing on which there appears to be a divergence it might add a little interest to that stage.
Many of the Members who have spoken have paid a real tribute to the Central Midwives Board. There has been a suggestion, I think by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), that there should be a majority of midwives on what will possibly be a new board which will be formed, but the working party itself did not ask for that. It asked in its report that there should be a 50 per cent. representation of midwives. In England there are 14 members on it, and five of them may be midwives. In Scotland the number is 16, and four of them must be mid-wives but others could also be midwives. We cannot say at this point how many members of the board will be midwives, but we shall keep in mind the recommendation of the working party because we realise fully that the number of professional midwives on the present board, in spite of all the excellent work that the Board has done, has been too small.
A question has been raised about separate boards for midwives. Some hon. Members seem to think that the General Nursing Board should be the board for midwives. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health dealt with this matter when he opened the Debate, and I am certain that


there are many reasons—he gave some of them—why there should be a separate board for this type of nursing.
There is only one other point with which I should like to deal. I think my hon. Friend gave the number on the roll for England and Wales as 70,000 and 18,000 practising. When this Bill was having its Second Reading in another place a request was made for the figures for Scotland. In Scotland we have 19,000 on the roll but only 2,400 practising. I feel that the relevant provision in the Bill is a good one, and that we should not go to the unnecessary trouble of making a list of thousands of people who are not practising and in many instances who never hope to practise.
When this Bill reaches the Committee stage, there may be some small points which hon. Members would like to raise, but I am certain that it will go through all its stages in the mood in which it has passed through this stage. It will do useful work for a body of women in this country, and I should like to refer particularly to some of those in our wild districts in Scotland—there may be some in the wild districts in Wales also—who do excellent work, not only in midwifery for our mothers but also in giving helpful advice in many other ways. I wish to conclude by paying a real tribute to these women.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wilkins.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to midwives (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under section fifty-three of

the National Health Service Act, 1946, or section fifty-three of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, being an increase attributable to—

(i) expenditure incurred under the new Act by local supervising authorities in providing, improving or furnishing residential accommodation for women undergoing courses of training with a view to obtaining certificates under the Midwives Act, 1902, or the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, or in acquiring land for the purpose of the provision of such accommodation; or
(ii) any provision of the new Act empowering the Central Midwives Board and the Central Midwives Board for Scotland to pay to their members sums in respect of losses or expenses suffered or incurred by them for the purpose of enabling them to perform duties as members of those Boards; and
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of the new Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part I or II of the Local Government Act, 1948."—[Mr. Jay.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PURCHASE TAX (GREETING CARDS)

6.25 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 7) Order, 1950 (S.I. 1950 No. 561), dated 3rd April, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th April, be approved.
When we last debated this important subject of greeting cards on 28th March, I promised the House that the Government would very shortly introduce an amending Order embodying what seemed to the trade concerned the most workable solution of the difficulty. That we have now done, and the Order which I am asking the House to approve tonight came into operation—appropriately enough perhaps—on Easter Monday.
The House will remember, if I may very briefly recapitulate the history of this affair, that the Finance Act, 1948, left us with three rates of Purchase Tax—100 per cent., 66⅔ per cent., and 33⅓ per cent.—applying to greeting cards and similar articles. It was agreed last autumn that this was inconvenient for everybody concerned, and after a great deal of consultation between the Customs and Excise and the trade, the 1949 Order was made in December last, simplifying the tax on the basis of 33⅓ and 100 per cent. rates only, and also altering the


definition so that only the plainest products attracted the lower rate of tax.
Certain further difficulties then arose which I described in the earlier Debate. The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who spoke for the Opposition in the earlier Debate, and who, I regret to see, is absent—I believe he is indisposed—somewhat confused the issue by implying that the 1949 Order which we were then discussing imposed a 100 per cent. rate on greeting cards for the first time and arguing that it had no validity under the Finance Act. That is entirely erroneous. The 100 per cent. rate applies because under group 25 of the Finance Act, 1948, pictures, prints, photographs and similar articles attract that rate.
It has been, of course, a settled principle of Purchase Tax ever since 1942, when the higher rates of tax were introduced, that the higher rate over-rode the lower rate wherever two rates were applicable. That principle is actually enshrined in Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1942, and is repeated in Section 20 (4) of the Finance Act, 1948. Indeed, not merely did that principle date from the Finance Act, 1942, but greeting cards since 1943 have attracted tax at the rate of 100 per cent.
Therefore, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, in making an attack on that principle and on that tax, was in fact attacking a principle and a tax which were in force in 1944 when, I think, he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Both of them were also in force when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) was Financial Secretary in 1944–45, if I remember rightly. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) accused us of sharp practice—I think those were his words—in applying the higher tax, but if he presses that charge he will have to press it equally against the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We have adopted a different solution in the new Order—the solution which the trade regard as the most workable and which was, I think, actually suggested by them. I should like again to express our thanks to the trade for the help we have had from them, throughout the discussions on this problem, in seeking a better definition, while making it quite clear that it is the definition and not the tax which they have agreed to accept. I do not

think anybody agrees voluntarily to pay a tax.
The new Order does two things. First, it excludes all group 34 articles other than greeting cards from the new definition, thus allowing those articles to revert to their original position under the 1948 Finance Act. That gets rid of the particular difficulty which had arisen over certain business calendars and it removes the 100 per cent. rate from them and from certain other things. Secondly, in the case of greeting cards to which the higher rate applies, it makes that rate apply only to cards with more than two colours, as I would put it, or as the lawyers prefer to say in the Order, "not less than three." That method of definition is, I gather, based on the technical processes of the printing trade and for that reason is regarded by the trade as workable.
The purpose of this new arrangement is to reduce the number of anomalies to a minimum but the new arrangement will not, I fear, remove them altogether. I am afraid it is impossible to remove anomalies from the Purchase Tax altogether while we have several different rates of tax, so that if any hon. Member tells us today that there are some anomalies which still remain, that will not be news to me. What we are seeking here is the best possible solution which will reduce the anomalies to a minimum.
Finally, I should like to make this clear. If the House were to vote against this Order tonight, it would not, of course, be voting against the 100 per cent. Purchase Tax on greeting cards. If this Order were not approved the No. 7 (1949) Order—that is to say, the Order which was made in December last—would come into force again. That Order also applies the 100 per cent. rate but does it in a fashion which I think everybody concerned now agrees to be much less workable than the arrangements we now propose. The practical choice before the House, therefore, is between, on the one hand, passing this Order and applying the two rates in a manner which is now agreed to be workable or, on the other hand, rejecting it and still applying those same two rates but applying them in a way which experience has shown to be much less workable. It is for that reason that I ask the House to adopt the former course and to approve this Order.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him one question? Under this new Order, will certain classes of greeting card, now charged at the lower rate, pay a higher rate, and if so, what kind?

Mr. Jay: As I understand it, it depends on exactly how the definition works out. More cards which previously carried the higher rate will now carry the lower rate than vice versa, but it may be that there are some cards which will pay the higher rate.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: This matter not only illustrates the faults and vices of the Purchase Tax, as a tax, to the full, but it also exemplifies the incompetent administration of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the way it has been handled. When the Financial Secretary indulges in some pleasantries about what happened when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), and myself were respectively Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the years 1943 and 1945, I would inform him that had we sat on the benches opposite during the last five years, the Purchase Tax would long since have been completely abolished, except, possibly, for a tax upon a few articles in the extreme luxury class.
Let us look at the history of this matter since 1948, when Purchase Tax was overhauled by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that time there were placed in Group 34, carrying the 33⅓ per cent. rate:
Diaries, calendars, greeting cards and similar articles.
On the principle that the greater includes the less, of course greeting cards includes the great class of Christmas cards, which is, indeed, their most common use.
I think anybody reading Group 34 in the year 1948 would have assumed that greeting cards were to be taxed at the rate of 33⅓ per cent., but then, of course, the Financial Secretary refers us to Group 25 in which:
Pictures, prints, engravings, photographs, figures, busts, reliefs, vases, and similar articles, of a kind produced in quantity for general sale.
are taxed at the rate of 100 per cent. It is said that because a Christmas card, which contains upon it a picture of a

robin, or a Father Christmas trudging through the snow is, by virtue of Group 25, a picture, it must therefore be taxed at the rate of 100 per cent. There is a most splendid refinement within Group 25 and it is that where the card is a reproduction
whether plain or coloured, of such pictures, prints, engravings and similar articles as were executed more than one hundred years before the date on which tax becomes due
the rate of tax was reduced to 66⅔ per cent. We all recognise, of course, that articles of furniture and so on, if more than 100 years old, secure certain benefits in the law relating to Estate Duty, but I think it was a most charming refinement where a reproduction of an antique also secured a benefit under Purchase Tax law, provided it was a reproduction of something originally made more than 100 years ago.
When we came, therefore, to consider whether the Christmas card bearing the picture of the robin was to pay tax at the 100 per cent. rate or at the 66⅔ per cent. rate, we had to discover whether the original robin of which it was a copy had been drawn or made on or before the year 1850. I quite agree that that was a refinement of the law from which it is extremely desirable that we should get away. So great was the difficulty in the interpretation of the Schedule relating to greeting cards in the 1948 Finance Act that in December last the Treasury made the Order to which the Financial Secretary has referred. It contained a very long definition which, immediately it came into force, was found by the trade to be virtually unworkable and to lead to chaos in connection with discovering what was the proper rate of tax to be paid upon any particular article. I shall not weary the House with reading the definition because it was referred to in the Debate upon the Order on 28th March.
Now, as a result of that Order being found unworkable, during the Debate on 28th March the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, having admitted that it was unsatisfactory, said that he would bring forward a new Order to take its place as soon as possible, and that is the Order which is before the House tonight. In the preparation of this Order the hon. Gentleman has had, as he acknowledged, the co-operation of the trade, and the effect of the Order, as he stated, really


is that where any card contains more than two colours—more than two different colours—then it will be taxed at the 100 per cent. rate, and it will, therefore, only be the simpler forms of Christmas cards and greetings cards which will secure tax at the rate of 33⅓ per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West, declared in the Debate on 28th March last, when this matter came before the House that:
When the Order is introduced … we shall oppose it if the rate of tax is raised above 33⅓ per cent. as it is at present, because we on this side of the House are against increasing taxes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 366.]
That was a clear indication that we on this side of the House would oppose a further Order if it incorporated the 100 per cent. rate. Now, of course, the last thing we on this side of the House want to do is to do anything which is unexpected by the Government or by the Patronage Secretary. We should simply hate to shock the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), who apparently thinks that the Opposition ought to give due notice of what course it is their intention to follow. At the same time, if we were to be governed only by that consideration, we should, of course, go into the Lobby tonight against this Order.
On the other hand, there are these points which weigh with us, I think, in coming to a decision as to how we shall conduct ourselves in this matter. It is the case, of course, that this Order is incapable of amendment. We should like to amend the Order so as to make all greetings cards taxable only at the lower rate, but it is not open to us to put down an Amendment for that purpose. We have either to accept the Order as a whole or to reject it as a whole.
Of course, if we were successful in opposing it and in securing its defeat in a Division, the position then would be, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that, first of all, as from today we should revert to the even worse Order introduced in December last, which produced chaos in the trade; and, in the second place, we should be left for a period of one month from 5th April last during which the Order at present before the House would remain the law of the land, as I understand the position; and we should in fact, therefore, by rejecting

this Order tonight, be making confusion even worse confounded than it is already.
Having weighed these matters with a genuine desire to take a statesmanlike attitude in this matter, and our absolute determination not to indulge in any factious or fractious opposition, we have come finally to the conclusion that we ought to allow the Order to pass, though with a protest—a very strong protest—against the way in which the matter has been handled by the Government, and a firm declaration that it will be our intention at the earliest possible moment after securing power to relieve the people of this country of this very unjust and unfair burden upon the simple means of remembering ourselves to our absent dear ones upon festive occasions.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: The Financial Secretary said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), in criticising the last Order—and I have no doubt he would also criticise this one—was, in fact, condemning himself, because the differentiation between the different kinds of Christmas card was in force when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) has dealt with that in part, but I should like to add this, that for the whole of the time when my two right hon. Friends were Financial Secretary to the Treasury we were at war, and surely it was a very good thing to discourage the use of Christmas cards in wartime because it diverted labour and materials from the war effort.
An Explanatory Note is attached to this Order, which is not really an Explanatory Note at all because it explains nothing. It claims to provide a fresh line of demarcation between the varieties chargeable at 33⅓ per cent. and those chargeable at 100 per cent., but it does not say what the line of demarcation is. It also talks about simpler varieties of cards, but it leaves us completely in doubt what the definition of a simpler card is. I have never read an Explanatory Memorandum which was more clearly designed to hide the meaning of a Statutory Instrument.
It appears from a careful study, not really helped very much by what the


Financial Secretary said, that this Order introduces two lines of demarcation—two quite separate lines of demarcation. The first is between greeting cards such as Christmas cards, and other cards such as picture postcards. Any picture postcard, even if it is uncoloured, which bears no greeting, will in future pay tax at either 100 per cent. or 66 per cent. according to the date of the picture on the card. Therefore an ordinary picture postcard will pay either double or treble the Purchase Tax levied on a greeting card. But, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, an ordinary picture postcard can be converted into a greeting card by a very simple device. A picture postcard of Brighton paying 100 per cent. can be converted into one paying 33 per cent. by printing on it the words "Greetings from Brighton." What could be more absurd than that? Why on earth should a picture postcard of Brighton without a greeting pay three times as much Purchase Tax as a picture postcard of Brighton with a greeting? I have three specimens here, which I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Astor) to take across to the Government Front Bench to show what I mean.
Places like the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Wallace Collection and the National Trust issue beautiful postcards illustrating their treasures. These cards can be used either as postcards or as Christmas cards. They are certainly far more artistic than most Christmas cards, and many people use them as Christmas cards. But unless a greeting is printed on them they will attract Purchase Tax at a rate of either 66 per cent. or 100 per cent. Now to print greetings on these cards would be to ruin their appearance. Therefore I protest against an Order which compels these beautiful cards to be marred in order to attract a lower rate of tax.
The second line of demarcation which this Order makes is one which has already been referred to: it is the line between Christmas or other greeting cards of two colours and those of more than two colours. Those that have two colours will pay 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax and those that have three 100 per cent. This differentiation will hit undeservedly two kinds of Christmas card. First of all, there is the reproduction of a famous picture where more than two colours are

employed. These cards, of course, are among the most artistic, and it is quite certain that to charge treble Purchase Tax on them will seriously reduce their manufacture and will discourage exports. I hold in my hand the very first Christmas card printed in this country in 1843, which has three colours. Any reproduction of it will attract 100 per cent. Purchase Tax. The Order will also hit cards reproducing coats of arms or crests in heraldic colours. They, too, will have to pay 100 per cent.
Thus these two lines of demarcation, between the greeting card and the picture postcard and between the two-colour and the three-colour card, are most oppressive. It seems as though the Government were determined to give a slap in the eye to anybody who tries to produce a work of art on a card. As in other matters, the Government seek to drag everybody down to a dull common level. It may be, as has already been suggested, that to reject this Order will cause confusion, but I hope that before the autumn the Government will think again and introduce a uniform rate for all cards which will not penalise artistic work.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael Astor: I should like to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I have been trying to think how the Government have reasoned this matter when considering introducing this Order. If we confine it for the moment to Christmas cards, I suppose they resisted any temptation to carry popularity or to be influenced by sentiment—a laudable move which we would applaud. Then I suppose they said: "A Christmas card is not a necessity. At least one that is highly embellished is an extravagant luxury. But a more simple and plain one is something which as a concession will only pay 33⅓ per cent. tax." Hence the differentiation in classifying Christmas cards.
Now that is all very fine, if for one moment you accept the principle of Purchase Tax to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) has already alluded. I ask the Financial Secretary: Is it not a fact that we export to New York and various parts of the United States a very large number of cards at Christmas time? I believe it to be the fact that in America the kind of


Christmas cards people like to send are made in England, with traditional English Scenes on them. Last Christmas I received several of these cards from friends in America. I should like the Financial Secretary to tell me specifically what this export market amounts to.
If this is the case, it is a very clear example of this particular tax, the Purchase Tax, on the more embellished forms of Christmas card cutting directly at the export drive. That is what this Order reinforces. That is a very great mistake. In this respect it merely puts these Christmas cards in the same category as a great many other items which have this vicious Purchase Tax attached to them. I believe that on behalf of my hon. Friend I handed the Financial Secretary a card with "Greetings from Invergordon" on it. I have here another card, a very pleasant photograph of "Lairg and Loch Shin, Sutherland," which anybody might buy to send to a friend or to stick in an album, but because it is not defaced by any slogans it carries 100 per cent. Purchase Tax. But nobody, except as a joke, would want this other card with "Greetings from Invergordon" spoiling the whole thing. I think the Financial Secretary must agree that this will, if not immediately at any rate very soon, have an effect on our exports of these things, for which there is a considerable export market in the dollar area.
Finally, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary: What is all the fuss about? Why is he going to proceed with this Order, and what does he reckon is the sum of money involved to the Treasury in this? I think that we should be told this, because it seems to me that the Order is great nonsense. I cannot believe that the Government would get very much support from their own benches for it. The Financial Secretary himself did not appear to speak very enthusiastically but with a certain amount of diffidence about it. Can he now tell us the estimated sum of money involved?

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: The history of the Purchase Tax on greeting cards is almost a classic of how things are done under a planned economy. There was the careful definition in the 1948 Finance Act; then there was the Order which was debated in this House on 28th March, in the course of which

the Financial Secretary promised us that there should be a new Order
which should clear up the uncertainty and provide the best possible definition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March. 1950; Vol. 473, c. 362.]
He faithfully discharged his promise to bring in a new Order, but when we see it, we are entitled to ask whether it is really the best possible definition. In the Schedule there are seven or eight lines which to the ordinary layman are quite incomprehensible. I, like many others, receive quite a number of Christmas cards and I think that one of the more agreeable pastimes next Christmas would be to sort out the Christmas cards we receive in the light of the definition of this Schedule. Without the advantage of the explanation just given to us, but with merely these few words of legal jargon, let us invite our relations and friends to sort out these cards.
I really think it is time we made a protest about the time of this House being continually taken up with trifling and unnecessary matters of this kind. It is not only the time of this House which is being taken up, but behind that is the time and experience of hard-working and over-pressed civil servants. Equally, on the other side there are businessmen who are eager to be developing the export drive, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Astor) has referred. In all these cases, time is being wasted because of these arbitrary decisions. I cannot help feeling that the amount of money which will be collected as a result of having two rates of Purchase Tax for greeting cards——

Mr. Keeling: There are three rates. There will be the greeting rate of 33⅓ per cent. or 100 per cent.; and there will be the rate on other cards, such as picture postcards, of 66⅔ or 100 per cent., because we revert to that for other cards.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the correction. Will the amount secured by having these varying rates of tax be enough to pay for the printing, the time of the civil servants and the time of businessmen needed?
The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Astor), referred to the export aspect of this matter. I think that he was perfectly right. About a month ago, I had


the privilege of entertaining an American printer who was in this country looking for designs for this kind of thing. He told me that he was leaving for Holland and France to continue his search there. Unless we have in this matter, as in others, a stable home market, we shall not be able to engage in the export market as we should. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will decide that this Order is really not worth the money that will be collected.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Woods: I should like to add my appeal to the Financial Secretary that he should try to persuade his right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the whole of this matter before the autumn. There is a good deal of truth in the arguments which have been put forward, but I think that this is a much wider issue than has transpired, because it covers the whole question of the prestige of British printing. Some years back, the prestige of this country in printing stood as high as that of any country in the world. That day is passing. Unless there is a very substantial market at home, we cannot give opportunities to our craftsmen or develop the modern technique necessary to maintain our position in the colour printing world.
At the present moment, there is taking place in London an international exhibition where philatelists will assemble to admire the most exquisite colour printing in the world and to compare it with the achievements of the past. Until relatively recent times, a number of countries came to the British printers of postage stamps to get their orders executed. That day is passing, and the modern stamps which will be seen at this exhibition in London—some of the most remarkable achievements in colour printing—will be the products of Switzerland. Many of the smaller countries are going in for exquisite work in their postage stamps—the best work available in the modern world.
I suggest that this is a much wider issue than putting a variation of tax on Christmas cards. It is a question of volume colour printing, and unless there are retained for this work sufficient categories of craftsmanship and machinery, we cannot hope to retain our position. Another argument with which I have a good deal of sympathy is that

this kind of legislation gives advantages to the shoddy rather than to the best product of which modern art and technique are capable.
I think it is wrong to view this whole question of greeting cards as though we were dealing with some form of luxury. The human values of sympathy, understanding and remembrance are much too important to be dismissed as mere sentiments, especially in these days when many of us have friends in various parts of the world. When we send them greetings we do not want to send the poorest examples of British art and craftsmanship, but something worthy of this country which will convey the esteem in which we hold them and our desire for international peace.
Many of us in this House happen to be grandfathers, and to send our grandchildren something which is drab and dull would be very unworthy conduct on our part. The children look for greeting cards which are bright and gay in colour. They can be achieved in three colours. They are poor examples in two colours, and black and white cards make no appeal to children. I, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend to discuss this matter with his right hon. and learned Friend so that we may have a simple and uniform set of regulations before the autumn, which will enable us to send to our friends abroad and our friends and relatives at home something worthy of this country.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There are only a few words that I wish to add. It is with great reluctance that I personally refrain from voting against this Order tonight. Some of the absurdities of it have already been pointed out by my hon. Friends. The Order involves, as the Financial Secretary admitted in his answer to me, an increase in taxation so far as certain classes of cards are concerned. I think that the words of the hon. Member for Droysden (Mr. Woods) are wise and should be well pondered by the Government.
The reason that we cannot vote against this Order is that if we do, it will restore a worse Order, and that seems to be a ridiculous situation and one about which a vigorous protest should be made. It seems to me to show up a defect in our procedure for dealing with Purchase Tax.


We were denied the opportunity in the last Finance Bill of discussing Purchase Tax at all. In the coming Finance Bill, we shall get a very limited opportunity of discussing it in rather artificial circumstances.
We are constantly told that there is this alternative procedure whereby Purchase Tax can be altered by Orders such as the one we are discussing tonight. That is not really an alternative procedure because, as has been pointed out, if we divide against this Order and defeat the Government, we are making confusion worse confounded by restoring a perfectly ridiculous Order, No. 2443 of 1949, which everyone agrees is unsatisfactory. Even if we were willing to restore that Order, there would be a further absurdity in that No. 561 of 1950 would govern the trade as from 10th April until, presumably, tonight.
It is an absurd situation which makes it quite impossible for the House of Commons to amend taxation of this sort, and it is another illustration of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of Purchase Tax and another reason why more appropriate machinery should be devised as was suggested in another Debate a few days ago, for handling the whole matter. Therefore, under protest, I agree with my right hon. Friend that we cannot divide against this Order.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: May I say one word in support of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) about Parliamentary control and taxation. As I understand the matter, the taxation that is now levied on Christmas cards and greeting cards springs from the Purchase Tax Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948. If we look at group 34 in that Act, we find specifically the words "Greeting cards" mentioned at 33⅓ per cent. I do not believe that when the House passed that Bill they realised that 90 per cent. of the greeting cards are not charged at 33⅓ per cent. but at the higher rate, and, by an administrative order, the Treasury have managed to class them under group 25 with pictures, vases and busts.

Mr. Jay: As I told the House before the hon. Gentleman came in, we did not do that by administrative order. That had been in force since the Finance Act of 1942.

Mr. Birch: What in fact has happened is that an enormous extra number of cards, owing to the way in which the Treasury administered this order, have attracted higher Purchase Tax rates. When in 1948 the House passed the Finance Bill, they could hardly have appreciated that greeting cards were not going to be classed under group 34, where they were mentioned as greeting cards, but were to be classed with picture, vases and busts. It seems to me to be a highly undesirable thing that taxation should be imposed in this way, and as my hon. and learnd Friend has said, it is one more illustration of how unsatisfactory and deceptive this tax is.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Purchase Tax (No. 7) Order, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 561), dated 3rd April, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Frederick Willey discharged from the Select Committee on Public Accounts and Mr. Alexander Anderson added.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Frederick Willey discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. Moelwyn Hughes added.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL DENTAL SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

7.12 p.m.

Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: When a Member is fortunate in securing an Adjournment Debate these days, he has either to miss his dinner or get ready for his breakfast the following morning. I make no excuse for raising this subject of the school dental service so soon after the Debate on the Education Estimates. I had hoped that the Minister would make some reference to the problem during his speech, and his reticence on this subject is most disquieting. Surely he is aware of the serious


position in the country. I should have thought the matter was of sufficient importance and urgency to warrant some statement during the Debate on the Education Estimates.
Shortly, the position is that the service is breaking down. It is one of the real casualties of the National Health Service. School dental officers are leaving the service to take up more lucrative employment in private practice. I will not weary hon. Members with details of the incomes to be earned in private practice, as they are well known to the House; sufficient to say that three, four or five times the salary of a school dental officer can be earned in private practice. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the service is being slowly paralysed?
The school dental service is not new. It dates back to before the 1914 war, and without doubt has brought about an improvement in the health of the nation. Regular inspection and treatment have succeeded largely in preventing serious illness and, in addition, the importance of good teeth being properly looked after has been borne in on children in their most impressionable years. It was never adequate, but nevertheless it has continued to develop. By January, 1939, some 783 whole-time officers were employed by the local authorities. The war interfered with the progress, but even so, by 1st January, 1946, 634 officers were engaged, rising to a peak of 921 in 1948. Would that this progress could have been maintained. Since the passing of the National Health Act the numbers have fallen steadily, and on 1st January, 1950, the figure reached 738, and is now lower.
We should consider the effects of this upon inspections. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I quote the authority I know best. I have made considerable researches into this subject in recent weeks, and the figures I am about to quote for Ilford are virtually the same throughout the country. In 1938, with a school roll of some 19,000, 22,820 children were inspected. In 1948, the school roll had increased to 20,267, but the number of inspections had fallen to 11,467. In 1949, the school roll had increased to 21,123, and the inspections had fallen to 3,757. Using the figures for the first four months of these years and relating them to the whole of

the year, we find that the number inspected will fall this year to something like 2,556.
It seems to me that the problem is twofold. First, there is the long-term problem of training sufficient dentists to cover both private requirements and the school dental service. Secondly, there is the immediate problem of maintaining the school dental service during the interim. We should like to hear from the Minister what progress is being made to secure the first of these objectives. When does he expect that we shall have sufficient dentists to ensure a reasonably good service?
As far as the second problem is concerned, is a salary adjustment necessary? The reason these school dental officers are leaving is simply that more money can be earned in private practice, but if the Whitley Council, which is now discussing this matter, reaches a conclusion, is it likely that they are going to award a scale of salaries which will give the school dental officers anything like the amount of money they can earn in private practice? Let us assume that they do that. What will be the effect on local government administration generally? We shall have the school dental officer earning a higher salary than the town clerk and the borough surveyor, which would throw the whole thing out of balance. It is unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that they will fix the salaries on that level. We are driven irresistibly to the conclusion that the salary they fix will be so far below the level a man can earn in private practice, that we shall not be able to retain them in the school dental service.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is only one way in which this problem can be solved in the interim, and that is to negotiate with the British Dental Association at ministerial level for some sort of part-time service. I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that in March of this year the British Dental Association issued an appeal to all dentists to make available at least one half session a week to treat school children, until such time as the Ministries of Health and Education and the local authorities have risen to their responsibilities by providing a proper service for the children. It is, of course, appropriate that in putting forward proposals such as this, one should look into their practicability. In our own


town, we have already started negotiations with the local dentists' association to see whether it is possible to do anything along these lines of providing a full-time part-time service, so to speak, by providing by a rota system a sufficient number of dentists to give us the necessary service throughout the town.
Our consultations, as yet, have not been concluded. We still have some way to go, and it will be necessary, if some results such as these can be achieved, for the Ministry to agree to a sessional fee somewhat higher than is paid today. If they do agree to a sessional fee on a higher level, they will be forced into a somewhat difficult position. It will mean that in some authorities we shall have dental officers leaving the service to take on part-time service if the sessional rate is substantially higher than their present fixed income. Nevertheless, the situation must be faced. The service is breaking down, and unless we get the dentists, and get them quickly, it will break down completely. We cannot afford to have the health of our children, and through them the health of the nation, impaired by any lack of effort on our part.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Baird: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper) on the reasonable and sane speech he has made on this problem. Too often when this question has been raised in the House, hon. Members have spoken as if there were an easy solution to the problem. I am glad the hon. and gallant Member realises there is not.
In regard to salaries for school dental officers, there have been considerable improvements since 1945. I remember making one of my first speeches in the House on the Second Reading of the National Health Bill and from the "British Dental Journal," a fortnightly publication, quoting an advertisement for school officers. The average salary was £450 rising by annual increments of £35 to about £600. I have got the current issue of the "British Dental Journal," and five years later here are some of the salaries which are offered. Walsall Education Committee offers a salary of £935 a year subject to adjustment when the new national scales are settled. The

Metropolitan Dental Clinics want a dentist at £900 a year rising by annual increments of £35 to £1,500. The City of Gloucester are advertising for an assistant officer at £950 rising by annual increments to a maximum of £1,000. The House should realise that under pressure from the Government, local authorities have gone a considerable way to meet the school dental officers on the matter of salary.
As the hon. and gallant Member said, salary is not the only drawback here. We should realise—and I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member does so or not—that the main responsibility for the school dental officer does not lie with the Government but with the local authority. It is true that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health are both interested, but the fixing of the salary chiefly lies with the local authorities. In the very nature of things local authorities are apt to be cheeseparing in their attitude to the service, which is to be met out of the rates. One of the main problems of the school dental officer is that he cannot negotiate direct with the Government about his salary while dentists in private practice can.
Furthermore—I think this is one of the main reasons why we are not getting young dentists in the school service—local authorities very often are reluctant to give the school dental officer the tools with which to do the job. Several of the school clinics in various parts of the country are a disgrace, and local authorities are often reluctant to provide out of public funds dental equipment which is in any way comparable with what a dentist would have in private practice.
Another point to be remembered is that under local authority service there is far too much book work to be done. Every tiny little local authority has a senior dental officer, who has to do a certain amount of form filling every week or every month. I believe the long-term solution—I put this to the Minister because I should like him to say something about it as I have raised it before and have never had an answer—is to take the school service over though letting it remain on a school basis. Why cannot the Ministry of Health take the service over and organise it on a regional basis in collaboration with the education authorities? In that way the cost of


equipping the service from the rates would be taken away and put on the National Exchequer, which would be a good thing; and, secondly, a considerable amount of wastage of dental manpower would be cut out, because now it is doing too much work of a written nature, on a regional basis there would be a more efficient service with the number of senior dental officers cut down.
As the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South said, the number of school inspections has fallen within the school service. It is also true that the British Dental Association has sent a circular to its members asking those in private practice to do part of the work done by the school dental service. I am not advocating this. I think it would be a bad thing if the school service broke down, but as a temporary measure this is a good suggestion. It should not, however, be necessary for the Government, the British Dental Association or any other organisation to ask them to treat school children when they come in for dental treatment. During the last few years, because of the large demand for dental treatment, child dentistry, being finicky work taking a bit longer, has not in many cases been popular with dentists, and where the child should have been at the front of, the queue very often it was at the back because of financial considerations. There are, however, some dentists—they are a considerable number—who give priority to school children.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South, has complained because the Government have not negotiated with the British Dental Association on this question. This is not a political question; it is an ethical question. Large numbers of dentists have realised the need to treat children, and I am glad the Association has sent out the circular they did, but there is no need to negotiate on this. The Government, I am sure, will give them every blessing, but the local authorities should get in touch with the local dentists and see if they can negotiate a temporary service, but the Government cannot be asked to negotiate with the Association, because this is a matter for the local authority.
There is one other point about which I should like to tell the House. The

Government are quite aware of this problem. We know, for instance, that the only ultimate solution is more dentists. Unfortunately, in the years before the war for almost a generation there was no expansion of the facilities in this country for the education of dentists, but since the war we have laid our plans and we are to have one or two new dental hospitals. There is one already opened in Newcastle, and I believe there is to be another in Aberdeen as well as one in the North Midlands. We are in need of a great many more dentists.
In this connection there is a further problem. With dentists making as much as £1,500 to £2,500 a year in private practice, it is very difficult to get them to take up a teaching job at say £1,500 a year. There is a great dearth of dental teachers of all kinds, and even if we have the physical buildings we still have the problem of finding the teachers to teach the students as they come along. We are aware of this problem, and we are facing up to it.
There is one other way in which the Government are trying to tackle this problem. In New Zealand a very interesting experiment has been going on for some years. There they have dental hygienists who are young girls. They do about two years' training under a dental surgeon and then they are allowed to treat children. I am told it is a very successful experiment. They both fill and extract children's teeth. I have met some of them when they were here on holiday, and they are intelligent and attractive young ladies. From what I have read, I believe it is something that we could adopt in this country.
The Government realised that this was going on and they sent a mission to New Zealand which was out there during the General Election. I believe it has come home. I do not know what the report will be, but if, as I believe, it will be a favourable one, then, within a very short period, we shall be able to start drawing upon the right type of young girl to go into the school dental service and help to relieve the shortage of dentists. I see the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) looks worried. As a professional man I agree that it is always doubtful to dilute a profession in any way, but if we limit this dilution to the treatment of school children, under the supervision all the


time of qualified dental surgeons, it will not do very much harm. We therefore have to look at the question of dental hygienists in the school dental service very seriously as a help to solving our temporary problem.
There are other points to be remembered. There is the question of fluorides in dentistry, which may have a revolutionary effect upon the prevention of caries in children. This matter is in the experimental stage but the Minister of Health has had the vision to be interested in the matter. That is a new approach from the Government Front Bench in health matters.
Finally, with regard to the salary position, the school dental officer himself has to a great extent been to blame. The position could have been put right two years ago, when the Government almost went down on their knees to the school dental officers and asked them to come into Whitley machinery in direct negotiation with the local authorities so as to get down to the salary question. I know and appreciate the attitude of the British Dental Association. I see in the "British Dental Journal" that they have now recognised the fact that the school dental officer should set up his own Whitley machinery as soon as possible.

Squadron-leader A. E. Cooper: The hon. Member is saying that he is reading that in the "British Dental Journal" now. I would like to point out that the Minister wrote to the former hon. Member for Ilford, North, as far back as 4th August of last year and that these words are included in that letter:
I am grateful to hear that both parties have now agreed to the formation of a National Dental Whitley Council.
That was 10 months ago.

Mr. Baird: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no doubt not been involved in these negotiations, so I can inform him that for two years now the British Dental Association has several times been on the brink of going into Whitley machinery, but has always drawn back. The occasion to which he refers was one of the times when it was on the brink. Negotiations have been called off by the British Dental Association, but I see there is a possibility of the school dentists going into Whitley machinery within the next month or two. The British Dental Association have said to

the school dentists, "Go ahead and set up your machinery, because you are negotiating not with the Ministry but with the local authority." Therefore there is a possibility that we shall get it in the near future.
Many hon. Members on the other side of the House are now taking an interest in these health matters. That is a healthy sign and I welcome it. I believe that if we look at the school dental service in the same way on both sides of the House, we shall get a solution to that problem in the near future. The school dental officers have done a great work in the past, and it would be a great pity if the service were to break down. I have welcomed this opportunity to take part in the Debate.

7.34 p.m.

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) will forgive me, I will not attempt to follow him in his generosity in distributing the blame for the present difficulty to the representative body of his own profession; nor will I quarrel with his expression of pleasure at finding that from both sides of this House there is an increased interest in the Health Service. I hope that will dissipate any view he may have held that an interest in the welfare of the people is a prescriptive right of one side of this House.
The hon. Member referred to a number of factors in the situation. On many points I agree with him. I believe it would be wise for us now openly to expose the present position and to urge that, whatever may have been the difficulties in the past, the time is long overdue for urgent steps to meet a situation which, because in part it is irreversible, is damaging to the health of the children of this country. I believe that there are two main factors, to one of which the hon. Member has referred, the shortage of dentists. It is an inescapable position. I resist the temptation to follow him upon the subject of dental hygienists and the issue of dilution that is involved. The plain fact is that there are two few dentists today to provide a dental service for the community as a whole.
Paradoxically, the result of applying a dental service to the community as a whole has been to deny it most of all to that section of the community that needs it most. These people need a dental service to which they have become


accustomed over the years. I have no doubt that, among all the forms of dental care, there is none to compare, in terms of the health of the people, with the dental care of school children, not only because it is in large part a care in early life, but because there has grown up in the school dental service a tradition which, without political implication, I may call conservative dental care. The present position is that a proportion of the children of this country are receiving no dental care whatever. Those who are receiving it——

Mr. Baird: I would point out to the hon. Member that the number of school dental officers is almost as large as it was in 1939. The school dental service was built up for a few years after the war, but we have now almost as many as we had in 1939.

Dr. Hill: I will not enter into a statistical calculation. I will reassert as a fact that today a proportion of the children of this country are denied dental care. I believe that that denial of dental care is due to the decision to offer dental care to the whole community while there was an insufficiency of dentists to do the work. The fact remains that a proportion of the school community lacks dental care and even though the position may be rectified in the next few months, it still remains true that those children have suffered and may subsequently suffer dentally because of that lack of care.
The second factor, however much the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, may refer to questions of organisation, is, as everyone knows, that by the operation of the Spens Committee's Report and by its translation into terms of remuneration, the level of remuneration in dental practice outside the school clinic has proved much more attractive than remuneration inside it. Some may assert—I certainly do not—that the terms outside have been over-attractive. Others will say with much greater justice that the remuneration of the school dental service has remained far too unattractive in relation to current conditions.
The point which I desire to stress is that, given such disparity of remuneration, the result of a dwindling corps of school dentists is inevitable. I have no doubt that the same principle applies in other directions, not excluding the

teaching profession. Faced with those two facts, an insufficiency of dentists and a disparity of remuneration, I do not think that we should be content to say—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not say—that the Minister must await the discussions in the Whitley Council, that regionalisation is the solution. I hope that at this late date—for the date certainly is late—he will find it possible to grapple with the situation.
How can he grapple with the situation? You may rule this outside the scope of our discussion, Mr. Speaker, but, as I see it, it is publicly to recognise that there is insufficient dentist personnel for the whole population and publicly to decide to give priority to the school population in this field, whatever that may mean in the provision of dental care for the rest of the community; and secondly—for it is no good merely touching the main underlying issue—swiftly to produce new scales of remuneration for school dentists which will have the effect of retaining them in the service and of attracting them to the service. I notice that when he finds Whitley discussions for the reduction of remuneration in the dental field going too slowly, the Minister of Health issues a decision by the Minister to reduce remuneration, leaving it for subsequent arbitration to say what the reduction should have been.

Mr. Baird: There is no Whitley machinery for the negotiation of salary increases or decreases for the dental profession. They negotiate directly with the Minister. There are no rules in the game. They can prolong discussion as long as they like.

Dr. Hill: In my experience, the art of prolongation can be managed either in indirect discussions between the Minister and a profession or within the now hallowed confines of Whitleyism. The point I want to make—I do not make it as a point of criticism—is that when a Minister on public grounds desires to reduce the outgoings of a service, he finds ways and means of speedy action unimpaired by the prolongation of Whitley machinery.
What I suggest is that so urgent is the problem of school dental care, so urgent is the need for securing sufficient dental personnel for the purpose, that intervention by the Minister is what is needed in order to secure the speediest possible


adjustment of this situation. It is not putting it too highly to say that at a time when, with the good will of all sides of this House, an effort is being made to improve the quality and to extend the range of the various parts of the Health Service, here, in what is, to me, one of the most important parts of any Health Service, a precious part of the Service, is being allowed to decline while arguments go on.
Maybe the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, is right in what he says about those arguments or lack of arguments between the Minister and the British Dental Association and arguments between the associations of local authorities and other bodies. The problem is too serious to permit of any prolongation of the present most unsatisfactory position, and I urge the Parliamentary Secretary not to rely on arguments which distribute blame or praise for the various delays which have occurred but to regard this as an urgent problem approaching a national scale, in the decay of the school medical service under our very eyes.

7.45 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I do not intend to detain the House long, but there are one or two points which need investigation. I was very interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) and his stressing of the fact that remuneration to the dental service in the schools is not sufficient to attract enough people to do the work satisfactorily and completely. Everyone will-agree with him, but it is not entirely a simple matter. After all, dentists working in the schools—in the past certainly, and even today—do not put in the number of hours which the professional man does in private practice. Therefore it would be a question not of total remuneration but of a sessional basis. I presume that the hon. Member for Luton had in mind that these people should be paid on a sessional basis but at a higher rate.

Dr. Hill: Appropriate remuneration. I do not intend to suggest that it should be equal remuneration with what is earned outside, but it should be appropriate remuneration sufficient to attract the needed dentists.

Dr. Stross: That puts it clearly. I must answer that by saying that I believe that young men of energy and vigour will still

tend to be attracted outside rather than to the school medical service and that we are not likely to solve the whole of the problem easily that way.

Mr. Baird: We have not cleared up the question of remuneration. The salaries at present being paid, at least by the more enlightened local authorities, to school dental officers are, according to the statisticians of the Ministry, the appropriate salaries recommended by the Spens Committee. The Spens Committee recommended a salary of £1,650 a year for a dentist at 40 working a 33-hour week. A salary rising from £1,000 is very near the appropriate salary. The problem is that dentists in private practice are getting considerably more than the sum visualised by the Spens Committee, and in order to get dentists into the school service again we shall have to pay them more than the Spens Committee recommended.

Dr. Stross: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, because he tends to make my point clearer—that because of the very high remuneration that some of the men get outside, the tendency will be for many young men to go outside rather than to stay in or to ask to come into the school dental service.
That brings one at once to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend of the training of unqualified or not fully qualified workers to assist in the service. He wondered whether it was a retrograde step. All of us must agree that we are very cautious and suspicious about any dilution of this kind. I believe that we accept that it is a proper principle that there is no operation in medicine or dentistry of so trivial a nature but that the more highly qualified and skilled the operator the better ultimately it will be for the patient. That is a suitable and proper attitude to take. A further point would be that it is not only the operation that one has in mind, whether it be to fill a tooth or to extract one, but it is desirable for the operator to be capable of making a diagnosis when the child opens its mouth and exposes its teeth. We cannot expect untrained personnel to be able to make a diagnosis as efficiently as men and women who are fully trained.
Most of us recognise that legislation, even at its best, does not erase an evil as one can, with an india-rubber, erase a sentence written in pencil, which one


does not like. At its best, good legislation spreads the load of the burden as evenly and as fairly as possible so that the shoulders best able to carry the burden should do so. Here I must agree entirely with the hon. Member for Luton "when he states that we want none of this burden to be carried by these weak, young shoulders. Everybody in this House is agreed that we want our children to be assured of the best treatment being given to them as expeditiously as possible. If the Ministry have made up their minds that men or women with a short training may help for a time or permanently to do this work, well and good; we shall have to accept it and hope that it will ultimately get us out of this difficulty. But whatever is done requires to be done expeditiously.
I wonder if a way out could have been found by asking every dentist who entered into the Health Scheme to give a session or a half day per week to the children in his area? It should not have been too difficult to organise so that all the children in a given area, by rota, could receive treatment in that way. I should imagine that the dentists would have been only too glad, and then we could have been certain that the children would have the priority for which all of us are asking. It may be that this would be administratively too difficult, but it is a suggestion and at all costs we want no further delay in seeing that some remedy of this type is found.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper) for not having been here at the beginning of the Debate, but I am grateful to him for having brought to the attention of the House one of the most pressing problems in the education and health services of this country. Indeed, it is only a few weeks since I raised this topic, along with that of the difficulty of children obtaining their school spectacles.
I listened with growing interest to the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) who, if he will forgive me for saying so, I thought was in danger of working himself into a ferment on the question of finance. The hon. Member seemed upset that the Minister had shown signs of economising

in the Health Service at the expense of the dentists——

Dr. Hill: Dr. Hill indicated dissent.

Mr. Thomas: Well, the hon. Member thought the Minister had acted too expeditiously. I understand that a dentist in Wales received £24,000 last year for one year's work in the service, and I am convinced that that scandalous state of affairs is bound to be an impediment to an adequate school service—is the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) wanting to jump up again?

Mr. Baird: I will, if the hon. Member does not mind. Hon. Members should not make general statements without qualifying them and without knowing what they are talking about. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member does not know, but in the case of the dentist to whom he was referring, those would be gross earnings, of which at least 52 per cent. were expenses, and also it is quite possible that he may have been employing one or two assistants. Perhaps he is getting far too much, but do let us have the figures correct.

Mr. Thomas: My points have not been made in vain if I have been able to bring my hon. Friend to his feet to defend the dental profession. It is a remarkable feat for which I take due credit. The question of school dentists ought to be tackled in this House from the point of view of how best the deficiency can be remedied. I believe that in certain areas of the country, dentists are already giving sessions to the school. Perhaps the hon. Member is aware of this?

Mr. Baird: Mr. Baird indicated dissent.

Mr. Thomas: They are already getting together voluntarily and taking their turn in giving a session to one-tenth of the children. I believe my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education knows that this has taken place in the City of Cardiff. Would it not be possible for new entrants to the profession to be required to do two years' service in the schools before entering into the wider sphere of activity? I do not mean to practise on the children because they are already qualified to practise on the public, but to let them give some service in the schools where there is an urgent need. If hon. Members are sincere that this is indeed one of the most urgent


problems in the education service, why should we run away from the fact that dentists, like anybody else in the community, must be prepared to go where there is the greatest need?
The terms of service which dentists give at present in certain parts of the country are greatly appreciated but it is upsetting that a part of the public health service should be so seriously upset when a National Health Service is introduced. I can hardly believe that it is finance alone which has caused professional men to leave a service so important to the children. If such were the fact it would speak ill for the professional standards of the people concerned. If the teachers behaved in that manner they would flock in thousands from the schools at present. They are there from a sense of vocation and they are giving their service even though they have a financial grievance. So I would not like to think the dentists had acted from that motive; it may be there are other chances of promotion outside. I say to my hon. Friend that this problem brooks no delay. In every part of the country we need a similar scheme to that in operation where the local dentists are loyally taking their turn in the schools or setting hours apart in their own surgeries when the children only can attend.

7.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper) for having raised this topic on the Adjournment tonight. I am sure he will appreciate, and I hope other hon. Members will also appreciate, my caution in replying to the many suggestions that have been made. Reports of one kind or another are awaited. Negotions are afoot for the setting up of Whitley machinery. The likelihood or not of local or national agreement with the dentists as to part-time service is still a matter not only of discussion but of growth and development. So I hope it will be appreciated by hon. Members on all sides of the House that I do not want to say anything in reply to this Debate which exacerbates what is an extremely tricky and serious situation.
I am not by training either a dentist or a member of the medical profession, so in some respects I may be a little out

of my depth in replying to this Debate. Of one thing I am convinced: reading the papers and looking at the files on this topic in my own Ministry, I am personally convinced that the only solution—and it is a long-term solution, because it takes time to train men and women—is to have a great addition of trained dentists to the dental profession. We have been increasingly anxious at the Ministry at the deteriorating position of the school dental service, and we realise, as speeches tonight have shown that others realise, that that deterioration is due to the steady fall in the number of school dentists.
Immediately after the war, acting under the stimulus of the Education Act of 1944, we set about trying, first, to enable the school dental service to overcome the effects of the war years and then to build up a really efficient, comprehensive service of regular inspection and treatment in the schools. For a while we were successful. The number of school dentists, full-time and part-time, rose from an equivalent of 634 full-time at the beginning of 1946 to 921 at the beginning of 1948. With this number of dentists it was possible to maintain an efficient service with reasonably adequate arrangements for regular inspection and treatment.
Even then—and we must admit this frankly—only about half of the required staff was available to meet an ideal service in the schools. We have, therefore, to admit that there has been—and it has been accentuated—a general shortage of dentists. So long as this continues, we shall be very glad to see the numbers back even at the 1948 level which I have mentioned. Unhappily, from an equivalent of 921 full-time school dentists at the beginning of 1948, the total had fallen to 866 at the beginning of 1949 and to 738 by the beginning of 1950. This fall is undoubtedly due to the fact that an increasing number of school dentists have found higher remuneration outside their school work. Because of the National Health Service the school dental service is no longer as attractive as it used to be to new entrants to the profession.
There are some other figures which we must take into consideration in dealing with this question. Last June, the rate of remuneration for dentists in the general service was reduced by about 20 per cent. A few days ago the rate has


been reduced—I think, from 1st May—by a further 10 per cent. I suggest, without laying too much emphasis on this, that these reductions will help to reduce the discrepancy between the earnings in general practice and those in the school dental service, although the effects of the latest reduction will not be immediately apparent. Taking into consideration the figures which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), who mentioned that the best authorities are paying a reasonable salary to their school dentists—an increase on salaries offered about two years ago—the discrepancy between the salaries of dentists outside the schools and those still in the school dental service has been narrowed.
But we would be blind to the situation if we were to say that, with the number of school dentists available for the treatment of school children, it is possible to maintain an efficient service. At present it is not Conditions vary somewhat between one area and another, but there are some areas where it is proving difficult, if not impossible, to provide even emergency treatment, and we have to face this fact. In other areas the difficulties are not so great, but if the decline of the last 18 months or two years continues, the conditions now to be found in the worst areas will become more or less widespread throughout the country.
It has been emphasised I think by every speaker tonight that the cause of the fall in the number of dentists practising in the schools has undoubtedly been the uncertainty as regards their salary position. Unlike the doctors, the dentists in local authority employment have never had any recognised salary scheme. As has been said, negotiations have been proceeding for some considerable time, perhaps for too long a time, to establish a Whitley Council to deal with dentists' salaries generally. One committee of this council would deal with the salaries of dentists employed by local authorities including school dental officers. Attempts to set up this negotiating machinery have met with a number of difficulties and at different times either the dentists or the local authorities have been unwilling to join in
Some progress has been made recently, but on 22nd April of this year a representative board of the British Dental Association

passed a resolution indicating that they were not now prepared to enter generally into Whitley Council machinery but agreed to a Whitley Council covering public dental officers only. This resolution has been brought to the notice of the local authority associations by the Ministry of Health and I hope that Whitley machinery to deal with the dentists in local authority employment may still be set up.
I agree with the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) that the sooner such machinery is set up, the better and that those of us with any authority in these things should be impatient of any undue delay. If the machinery is set up the question of salaries can be at once considered, bearing in mind always the present situation and general Government policy as to personal incomes. I am afraid, however, that this latest development is bound to lead to some further delay, which we can ill afford in view of the present position of the school dental service.
What we have to do as a matter of urgency is to overcome the difficulties of the last two years. It is also important that we should investigate other ways of easing the pressure on the school dental service, and speakers on both sides of the House have referred to possibilities in this direction. We have, as has already been mentioned, been looking into ways of doing this. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, referred to the official mission, upon which my Ministry was represented, which was sent to New Zealand to obtain a report on the New Zealand system of school dental nurses. These nurses are employed by the New Zealand school dental service after two years' training—I speak unprofessionally here, and may be pardoned, I hope, for so doing—in the dental care of children. I am not arguing about this, because I am incapable of being accurate as to what precisely that means and how far this means a dilution of professional ability. The mission has recently returned to this country and we are awaiting its report with very keen interest.
The other development which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, which is one of considerable interest to a layman like myself because it sounds so easy for one's children, has been the setting up


of a working party by my right hon. Friend to direct and organise an investigation into the prophylactic effect of the local application of a solution of fluoride to school children's teeth. One has heard of flueologists for chimney sweeps, but the word fluorides in relation to school dentists is a new word to me. It sounds easy, but I presume it would be years before we could say that the use of this substance is to save dental treatment in adolescence.
As part of the investigation that is taking place, I understand that the teeth of about 3,000 children in different parts of the country are to be treated in this way with the full consent of the parents, which we at the Ministry of Education always try to obtain. Work on this has already begun. It is a long-term policy of research and it will, as I have said, be some years before we know the results. Obviously if the prophylactic value of the treatment turned out to be high, the saving in demands on the school dental service for treatment might be very considerable. I understand that research work on this subject is also going on in the United States of America.
But, whatever benefits may come from these long-term developments, it is no use concealing the fact that at the moment the school dental service in this country is in a very serious condition. The establishment of the National Health Service has created a heavy demand for dental treatment for adults who previously had not been able to afford the cost of that treatment. The number of dentists in the country has not been sufficient to meet this demand, although for the most part they have done valuable work in trying to cope with it. Consequently, competition between the general dental service and the school dental service is arising.
I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House will support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) in his remarks about the prestige of individual members of the school dental service who would be the last to think of leaving the service at a crisis in the dental treatment of school children such as this. As the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) so rightly said, here in the treatment of the teeth of young children we lay the foundation of

good health in adult years. Members of the school dental service have been doing a great job in the schools and I am certain that most of them are not prepared lightly to give up their responsibilities in the service simply on the ground of increased remuneration outside. I do not pretend to know exactly what it is because I know nothing professionally of the service itself, but if we can get this better balance between remuneration outside and remuneration in the schools, the recent losses from the school dental service to the general dental service should be made good and I think the school service may be restored at least to the level of efficiency on which it was able to operate two years ago.
As I have pointed out, I have been a little outside my experience in replying to a Debate of this kind, as I do not pretend to know the professional niceties, or indeed the professional etiquette or technicalities of this subject, but I do know as an educationist that I can, with wholehearted warmth, support the anxiety of every speaker in this Debate about the immediate future of the dental treatment of our school children. It is our duty as a responsible Ministry, in cooperation with the local authorities and others concerned, to put this matter right, as soon as possible.
To the hon. Member who raised this topic tonight, I say that we are grateful that the subject should have been raised by him and should have provoked so interesting a Debate. The many suggestions that have been made by hon. Members on all sides of the House will be considered by my right hon. Friend and myself and our officers. We are not prepared to allow this service to decline any further. We shall do our best to meet the situation and to meet it urgently.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask what steps his Ministry are taking: to increase the number of students in training for the dental profession, which he and I agree is a fundamental question?

Mr. Hardman: I must confess I cannot answer that question. I have not looked at that part of the file, but I am naturally prepared to let my hon. Friend know. I must ask the indulgence of the House when I say that I do not know the answer now.

Orders of the Day — UNDERPAID WORKERS

8.16 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I had intended last Friday to take advantage of the opportunity to introduce a Private Member's Motion to draw attention to the conditions of underpaid workers in this country. I had won the second place in the Ballot, but so great was the interest in the subject of the first Motion, scientific research in industry, that my Motion was not called. I am, therefore, taking the opportunity which arises from the early Adjournment tonight to raise this urgent and important question. I hope very much that the fact that our discussion takes place on an Adjournment Motion will not be regarded by hon. Members on the back benches, or by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, as indicating that we do not attach the greatest importance to it.
Speaking quite soberly, I believe that the poverty of the underpaid workers of this country is the most urgent of all social and economic issues here at home. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Budget, emphasised that the accompaniment of the Budget by the Economic Survey represented a revolution in economic thinking and Government responsibility. He pointed out that it was agreed that the Government must accept responsibility for the general economic health of the community. I think he was right. But the revolution in economic thinking and in Government responsibility which the Economic Survey reflects is only the outcome of a deeper revolution in political thinking which preceded it.
I am just old enough to remember the election in 1906 which first returned the Labour Party to this House as an organised group. It was only 29 strong. If there were any Liberals on the benches opposite, I would remark to them that in that election I was a Liberal agent in the Kentish village in which I lived. When the Labour Party entered the House for the first time as a group in 1906, it made the problem of poverty the first issue of politics. There had previously been lonely voices both on the Conservative and Liberal benches, which had drawn attention to instances of economic injustice in this land; but, broadly speaking, until the end of the

19th century it was held that the problem of poverty, of unemployment, of low wages, was outside the scope of Parliamentary attention, and it was the coming of the Labour Party and Socialist thought into politics which brought about that political revolution in thinking. I am sometimes inclined to think that that change in political thinking which followed the entrance of the Labour Party into our national politics is the greatest and most fundamental achievement which our Labour movement has yet attained.
During the last four and a half years we have gone some way towards dealing with this problem of poverty. We have established a ground-floor in society so that whether a man or woman becomes unemployed, or sick, or aged, or suffers injury, he or she no longer falls through to the basement of destitution. But I intend to urge tonight that there is still a large gap in that ground-floor, and that if there are workers in this country, engaged in useful service to the community, working full time on behalf of society, who at the end of the week are not receiving a wage adequate to maintain their family in a condition of health—and indeed more than health, in the enjoyment of some of the amenities of life—then we have not yet established that ground-floor of social security and we are still leaving in our community a section of our people who, despite their work for the nation, are denied even a living income in return for the labour they give.
In the inter-war years we used to regard an income of £3 a week for a family as being below the poverty line. In view of the increase in the cost of living, a wage of less than £5 a week today is also below the poverty line. Even when we allow £6 per annum for the social services which all of us so greatly welcome, a family whose income is below £5 a week is not securing the conditions of a healthy life, not to speak of a full human life.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): What the hon. Member is proposing would require legislation?

Mr. Brockway: I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will find that my argument will indicate that I am not proposing legislation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: How does the hon. Member intend to propose that it should be done?

Mr. Brockway: I shall later suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, in his annual Economic Survey, make a declaration of the minimum wage which he believes production would allow. I believe that that declaration, particularly if applied in the nationalised industries, would be sufficient to secure the adoption of that minimum throughout industry. Therefore, I am not proposing legislation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a pious hope, but I do not think it could be done without legislation.

Mr. Brockway: Perhaps I may be allowed to state my argument. I shall argue that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes an Economic Survey, and in it estimates that a certain amount of our national production is available for increased wages, then the Chancellor can use his power, both in the nationalised industries and in the system of wage councils which now exists, to establish a minimum which will become a model and example to industry as a whole.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is my point. It would require legislation to do that.

Mr. Brockway: I do not think so. Unless I am greatly mistaken, a declaration of that kind, its application to our already publicly-owned industries and the example that would give to wage councils would be effective without its being necessary to introduce legislation. That is my argument.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that it would be effective, and I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue that argument.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of Order. Is it not quite competent for the hon. Member to make out a case why the Chancellor should make this declaration, which I understand is all that he is doing?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gather that the hon. Member's point is that he wishes to have a minimum wage rate fixed in this country.

Mr. Hughes: With all respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, not by legislation. So far as I have been able to follow my hon. Friend's argument, I understand

he is asking that the Chancellor should make a declaration.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but he could not enforce it without legislation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Our main purpose is not to ask for legislation but for an investigation into the facts. Secondly, there are already wage councils in existence, and all we are asking is that the Minister of Labour should, in view of the present situation, consider the advisability of using his regulations for the purpose of getting the wage councils to adopt a minimum of £5 a week. Therefore, on those two points we are not asking for legislation. We are asking, first, for an investigation and, secondly, for administrative action.

Mr. Brockway: I recognise that on the Adjournment I have not the right to put forward any argument which requires legislation to give effect to it, and I shall be careful not to do so.
To deal first with the point of investigation which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), so far as I can discover there are no facts and figures available at present which will enable us to judge what proportion of the working class population is below the figure of a £5 per week wage. In answer to a Question last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a figure which at first sight was alarming. He said that in 1948 the number of incomes between £250 and the Income Tax exemption limit of £135 was about 9,250,000; that is, there were 9,250,000 people who, according to the Income Tax investigations, fell below the standard of £5 per week. But I recognise that figure cannot be taken for the purpose of the case I am putting, because that total would include large numbers who would not be wage earners in the full sense of the term.
The White Paper on National Income and Expenditure states that the average earnings in this country in 18 industries are £6 6s. a week. In two industries the average earnings are actually placed at less than £5 a week. If £6 6s. is the average for those 18 industries, where sometimes the wages reach £8, £10, £12 and even £15 a week, it would not be an over-estimate to say that there must be at least two million fully employed workers in this country whose earnings do not amount to £5 a week.
Last week, one heard on the benches opposite, a reference to the phrase of Disraeli about Britain being two nations. We must face the fact that, despite all the lifting of the standards of life in recent years, Britain still remains two nations. We must face the fact that for thousands of the working class, existence is limited by very low wages even to conditions below subsistence, while there is a section of the community, even in these times of economic stringency, who are still able to live in conditions of luxury. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that even if all profits in the country today were distributed as wages, wages would increase little. He has overlooked the psychological importance of the fact that a worker who is receiving less than a living wage, inevitably has an added discontent and grievance if he sees other sections of the community living in conditions of luxury.
What is the approach of the Government to this problem of the underpaid worker? The Budget gave him no relief, because the underpaid worker is below the Income Tax level. As I understand it, the argument was that even if the Purchase Tax were reduced, or even if children's allowances were increased, the major portion of that assistance would go to the whole community, and therefore the assistance which would be given to the underpaid worker, because of the limited amount available, would be slight and small. As I listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I found it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the Chancellor himself recognises that if the problem of the underpaid worker is to be met, it must be by an increase of his wages rather than by any method that can be adopted in the Budget. The Chancellor is to speak with the Trades Union Congress and with the employers' federations. I hope that one result of these conversations and discussions will be that both the trade unions and the employers will recognise that the first necessity today is to lift the wages of underpaid workers to a living standard.
It is possible that tonight we may hear the view of the Government that it is necessary to leave these matters, entirely uninfluenced, to the negotiations between the trade unions and the employers. I have been a trade unionist for 43 years.

I recognise the tremendous importance of the contribution the unions have made. I recognise at once that they must have the responsibility of negotiating this, that and the other rate. But I express the hope that representatives of the Government, representing the nation, will also stress the fact that since we, the nation, receive the services of the underpaid workers, we have a right to demand that those underpaid workers shall receive at least a living wage in return for the work they give.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What the hon. Member is proposing cannot be done without legislation.

Mr. Brockway: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am arguing that it can.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I wish to make it quite clear that my view is that it cannot.

Mr. Brockway: Then I must accept your Ruling Sir, but I wish to say that I am not going to propose tonight the introduction of any legislation. I am going to be quite content with a declaration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in his view and in the view of the Economic Survey, there is sufficient in this country to establish a living wage for every underpaid worker. It could be applied to publicly-owned industries without legislation; it could be applied to wage councils without legislation, and if applied in those two large spheres it could not help but become an example and a model to the whole nation. It is in that sense that I am arguing in its favour tonight.
If the present methods of settling wage standards are maintained, there will be no solution whatever and no guarantee that the standards of life of the underpaid worker will be maintained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to them as catch-as-catch-can methods. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), in his presidential speech to the National Union of Distributive Workers, described them as guerrilla warfare, as merely a pressure on this trade and on that trade without any co-ordination in the community as a whole. Those methods last year resulted in an increase in wages, despite wage restraints, amounting to £300 million. Those £300 million did not go to the workers who deserved


the increases most or indeed who served the community most. That increase was distributed according to the pressures and the strength of particular trades, and I suggest that that is not a method of distribution which we should accept.
We have now advanced to the position of a planned economy. We plan capital investment, production, exports, imports, subsidies on food to keep prices down, and we plan national expenditure in many spheres. We plan the limitation of the incomes of the rich, but we leave wages to pressures of particular trades without any planning or principle at all, with the result that there are gross inequalities at the present time. I suggest that a planned economy which omits a guarantee to every useful worker of a living wage misses the first essential of a just society.
I turn to the method that I propose by which wages of the underpaid workers should be increased. The last Economic Survey refers to the extent to which the expenditure of this country may safely rise. The figure which is gives is £400 million, and it remarks that a proportion of that may be utilised in increased consumption in this country. I suggest that of the £400 million, at least £200 million could be allowed for increased wages. That would perhaps be enough to establish, by the method of declaration, of example and influence, a minimum wage of £5 a week.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer would introduce his Economic Survey; he would say that £400 million was available and that £200 million of it would be devoted to increased wages; and he would say that in the view of the Government a standard of life could be established in this country on the £5 level and that, as an expression of our sincerity, we would apply that standard to the publicly-owned industries and the wage councils. We should give that as a model to the community The following year, as production increased, he would make a similar declaration which again would become the minimum accepted standard for the life of our community. It that were done, I can see our community, within a few years, year by year, lifting from the level of poverty hundreds of thousands of workers and putting them on a real ground floor upon which every worker and every family in the community would have the basis of a decent healthy life.
This is, to me, a matter for the social conscience of each one of us and particularly of this House. Those of us who accept services from other workers without demanding for those workers a living wage in return for their services have no right to what we receive from them. Our clothes, our food, our journeys on the railways run by the underpaid railway-men—everything which we enjoy in life is due to their labour. We, as Members of Parliament and as a House of Commons, will not be doing our duty to the workers and to the nation if we do not see that, in return for their labour, they receive at least a living income.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) spoke with the greatest possibly sincerity which, I am sure, touched a chord in the hearts of each and every one of us, but I am bound to say that I think he has unduly simplified the problem. In bringing forward a solution which, if I understood it, was all he was entitled to bring forward at the moment, and which would be nothing more than a pious hope on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, coupled with some instructions to the nationalised industries, he created rather more problems than he solved.
I hope hon. Members will bear with me when I comment on the fact that he illustrated the virtue of the planning which we have secured—the planning of investment, the planning of the limitation of the incomes of the rich and the planning of cheap living by subsidy—and he omitted, of course, to mention planning of high living by Purchase Tax. All the spheres with which we are now concerned are planned, he said, except wages. I know his mind is acute and keen to see, however, that if the State once enters the sphere of planning relations in terms of money, between employers and work people, the function of the trade union becomes entirely unnecessary.

Mr. Brockway: I indicated that all kinds of wage rates would still be in the hands of trade union negotiations. All I sought was that we should attempt to establish a minimum living standard for the community.

Mr. Butcher: The suggestion is, if I understood the hon. Member, that we


should establish a minimum standard but, by virtue of the conditions under which this Debate takes place, it cannot be established by legislation. Therefore it can only be established by a pronouncement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in terms of a pious wish—something like his expression of a wish with regard to the remuneration of Mr. Lord. Then we might see retrospective legislation assuming a most peculiar shape.
The hon. Gentleman went on, in a passage I thought rather eloquent, to suggest that on one occasion the announcement of the Chancellor would be that the minimum standard would be £5, and that 12 months later the standard would be £5 10s. Certainly we would all wish to see a steadily rising standard of living in this country, but what is going to happen to differentials? Consider the man who is receiving with differentials, £5 7s. a week. What is to happen if the Chancellor, having announced £5 in the first year, announces 12 months later £5 10s.? Surely there is going to be some adjustment in the terms of the different crafts in the different industries? But if that happens, it will be in direct contradiction of the Chancellor's request for restraint in wage increases. The hon. Gentleman, I think, has opened up a subject in which many Members of this House would have been happy to participate had they, perhaps, had more notice.
The real problem is this, as I see it. There is really no easy way to lift the standard of living of the people of this country as a whole. The hon. Gentleman referred to the comparatively low minimum wage paid on the railways of this country. I agree with him entirely. The railwayman, I believe, under present conditions is underpaid in relation to many sections of the community. It is worth while examining the historical background of that, and the answer is that at a certain period of time the wages for employment on the railways may not have been particularly high, but there was freedom from unemployment in the terms of employment there, because the railway workers were discharged from the service of the companies only for the sort of reason for which everybody would agree employment should be terminated. But we are now reaching the position under this planned economy, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that remuneration

has no relation to the responsibility of the job, nor is there a wage differential properly applied at the present time.

Mr. Blackburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today there are more workers in this country working on piece work than ever before?

Mr. Butcher: Yes, I appreciate that point; and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interruption, because it brings me to the next point, which, indeed, was the one in my mind, and that is, that remuneration must be related to production. I believe that we have now to examine the conditions of all our industries in this country to see how we can assist the ordinary worker in industry to secure the maximum amount of production of which he is capable. A lot of things have to be done, with the discussion of which I shall not detain the House tonight, but it is the duty of the employer to place at the disposal of the workers labour-saving tools which will relieve human beings of much of the drudgery they have had to do in the past, and the proportion of mechanical aids at the disposal of the workers of this country is not equal to that, for example, in America.
Secondly, I believe there is a case for granting these increases, if there is negotiation between the employers and the trade unions, to the lower paid workers; but let us realise that this is going to require an increased differential on the part of the more skilled workers. The hon. Gentleman said there was a psychological effect on the lowest paid workers in seeing others more comfortably off. I suppose that is possible, but how far is that to go? How far does it go? The days are far gone by when people were able to see the wealthy driving in their carriages while the poor begged at the gates. Those days have long gone, thanks to the influence not only of this Government but of many successive Governments.
How far is this to go? Are we to reduce everybody to one dead level of equality? Because we must be careful that, in removing the burden from the lowest paid workers, we do not deaden the efforts of those receiving more. Surely the ambition of this country—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman has placed us all in his debt in initiating this Debate—is


how to dispose of the present wages force so that, on the one hand, we maintain free negotiation between workers and employers, and at the same time bring into each human being that incentive for personal advancement, so that he will lift himself and his family steadily over a period of years by greater effort and greater productivity.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Limits are imposed upon us when speaking in an Adjournment Debate and we must have regard to them. Our main objective this evening is to ask for an official investigation, to ask what administrative action may be taken, and to place the facts on record. For five years we have maintained industrial peace in this country; for five years we have worked for increased output, which has reached record heights, and has resulted in a larger volume of production than ever before in Britain's history. The chief reasons for this are: the relative regulation of our affairs; the maintenance of full employment; the good will created by the Government's social legislation; the loyalty of the organised workers to their country; and the relative high profitability of private enterprise. How long will this last? Our future depends upon the answers that are to be given to the questions we ask. Our country cannot afford the industrial friction that took place between the two world wars.
I want tonight to place on record one or two very serious extracts from the official report of the proceedings of the Preliminary Wages Conference which took place on Tuesday, 20th December, 1949, between the engineering unions and the employers. Mr. Brotherton and Mr. Hill, speaking for the engineering unions, said:
In the discussions that followed the publication of the White Paper it was made quite clear by the Government that it was national policy to obtain price and profit reductions. The Government appealed for voluntary price cuts and strengthened the machinery of price control.
This expectation of price and profit reductions greatly influenced the trade union movement in accepting voluntary wages restraint. Indeed, the Conference of Trade Union Executives only accepted the principle of the White Paper in March. 1948, on condition that a vigorous policy was pursued, 'designed not only to stabilise but to reduce profits and prices'.

The engineers have restrained themselves for 12 years first, during the re-armament period; second, during the war; and third, during post-war recovery.
The whole trade union movement has accepted the policy of a wage stop for two years on the conditions I have quoted. Here are the conditions in the official publication dealing with the proceedings of the conference when this policy was first accepted. I had the privilege of being present, representing the executive of which I am a member, at all these conferences, and I have seen the change in the tone of the proceedings, about which I want to speak later. I will now quote from the official publication of the Trade Union Congress of a special meeting of the executive held at the Central Hall, London, on 24th March, 1948:
The recommendation of the Committee is therefore, that the General Council should record:

(a) its endorsement of the policy of general stabilisation as set forth in the White Paper; and
(b) its acceptance of the principles which this statement proposes should be applied to wage claims at the present time"—

Now let me emphasise with all the power that I can command that those recommendations were accepted with this condition:
That the Government pursues vigorously and firmly a policy designed not only to stabilise but to reduce profits and prices.
It concludes:
The policy outlined in this statement should be reviewed in detail immediately after the Budget and thereafter at intervals of not less than three months.
I ask the House: Have those conditions upon which that policy was accepted been carried out? For unless the Government take the initiative and grasp this nettle of costs, profits, prices and wages, I can see us drifting into a catastrophic condition in this country.
I was present at a special trade union executive meeting held on 12th January of this year. I have seen the changing tone of the proceedings. It reflected itself in the vote which produced a small majority and which has long since been wiped out at a number of annual conferences. Therefore, that sets the danger signal for all of us in this country and for the Government in particular. That was three months ago, and I ask the Minister


what action has been taken in the meantime or what action it is proposed to take.
Is it intended to go on running against the danger signal in the way we are going? The complacent attitude of "leave it to both sides in industry" has long since been out of date in this country. Those of us who passed through the inter-war period of industrial strife and were involved in idleness through lock-outs and in strikes that we had no desire to take part in but became involved in, do not want a repetition of that.
We have heard a great deal about the dollar gap but little about the wages gap. We have heard little about the gap between the actual production costs and the selling cost of the finished commodity. We have heard little about the gap between those to whom I belong who are engaged directly on production and the millions who are not engaged directly on production. It is for those people that I am speaking this evening. It is time that their lives, their needs and their ideas were placed on record, for in this country less than 10 million people are producing the wealth upon which 50 million people are living.
On 21st June, 1944, the present Foreign Secretary said in this House:
If we had had through the nineteenth century a rise of wages comparable to the productivity of the working people, the standard of living in this country would have been doubled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 226.]
Those engaged in industry are not going to see a repetition of that in this century.
We are asking, therefore, that the Government should conduct an official investigation and work out a comprehensive costs policy, so that we may see the fluctuations that take place over the whole field, as in the case of that very fine document published by the Ministry of Labour and the "Board of Trade Journal." We want a similar document showing the costs of materials, the overhead charges, the distributive costs and the selling prices. If it is right to apply incentive schemes to manual workers, it is equally right that they should be applied to everyone else. The miner has his output measured per man-shift, and absenteeism is shown. The same also applies to engineers, but as soon as we get out of productive industry, we find

very little measurement applied to the services rendered.
While we support the Government's policy of introducing and improving these incentive schemes, because those of us who are students of economic affairs are bound to agree that the country is in a serious economic position, the time has come to ask the services of the millions who are not engaged in productive industry should also be measured. Real wages are measured by what they will buy, and therefore there is increasing concern about the costs of production and the prices paid for the finished article, as well as of the profits made. Our people believe that the time has arrived when this country should accept 20th century ideas, not only in the field of science and the preparation for defence, but also on the question of wages, salaries, costs, prices and profits.
I suggest to the Prime Minister, in particular, that he should consider appointing a Royal Commission to go into these matters and report as soon as possible. I also suggest that when they make their report, it should not be placed on the file or shelved, as has happened too often in the past with these reports, but that action should be immediately taken. While that is taking place, each industry should be asked to work out a short-term policy by agreement. The Commission might consider such questions as costs, profits and wages and the effect of the changes in industry during the past 50 years. For example, I would quote the effects of taxation on productive industry, and the enormous growth of unproductive labour and overhead charges. The Commission should consider also the question of reward in accordance with service and merit.
I want to follow those suggestions by giving some concrete evidence on the need for their considerations. I am still relatively young, and yet I have seen a great flight from manual labour in this country. No one wants to do work now, relatively speaking. Few want to take off their coats, and this is largely because during my lifetime the status of the manual workers has been lowered and lowered, while that of other people has improved. I have seen a change in the attitude towards labour, and the time is ripe for the status of the manual workers


and those engaged in productive industry to be improved and got more into line with 20th century ideas. There has to be reward and promotion on service—and not for the sake of playing up to people, as is done far too much. We want the conditions of our people improved and promotion on merit, technical ability and capacity, instead of what takes place far too often.
We want the growth of unproductive occupations and professions also to be considered in view of the position in industry. I happen to be in a very strong position in advocating this. We knew or ought to have known that our pre-war economy was becoming top-heavy, and it is easy to talk when there is no responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, "Hear, hear," but it is for every one of us to say what action he proposes to take when he has got responsibility. In 1945 and 1946 there were millions who had served us well in the Services and in industry. All those had to be transferred into normal industry, and that was the time when we could have used our influence in order to get more of those people interested in the need for increased output and increased numbers in productive industry. However, we have arrived at a period in Britain when there are far too many watching and too few doing the real work. This is being seen more and more.
It is said that the time for strikes has gone by. I largely agree with that, and, therefore, we shall have to use the growing, intellectual capacity of ordinary people in this country in order to achieve our ends in the 20th century manner. During the past 10 years, great changes have taken place in the methods of production and in the relative importance of industry and of the individual. The chief assets of our country are coal and the men who get it, and the industrial capacity and skill of our people. More and more we shall depend on these people. Does the present method of payment secure the best results, or is the amount of payment being received out of date for services being given to this country? In my view no adult person in Britain should be receiving less than £5 a week at the present time for a full week's wage.

Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend has been speaking about the engineering industry, and as a Member of Parliament who represents an engineering constituency, may I reinforce what he has now said and ask him if he does not agree that most of the engineering workers throughout the country would agree to a national minimum wage—not imposed by the Government but agreed to by the trade union movement—of £5 per week; and is that not a great credit to the engineering workers?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, but I must be on my guard or Mr. Deputy-Speaker will rule me out of Order. I am not asking for legislation.

Mr. Blackburn: There is no legislation involved.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There will be, if we are not careful. I must make it clear that I am not asking for legislation but to be permitted to place the facts on record and ask for an investigation. Thirdly, I want all possible administrative action to be taken. For once, we are not being drawn off into a side line.
I was making the point that no adult person in Britain should receive less than £5 a week as a minimum wage, after all stoppages had been made. It should be a national minimum related to the cost of living. I ask the Minister, "Does he accept that?" If so, what action does he propose to take? I can see that you are getting a little uneasy, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can understand that, but I have made clear my purpose. Secondly—and I have not said this yet—there is already legislation on the Statute Book which permits wage councils to review the conditions in industry and by regulation to fix wages accordingly. That is all that I am asking for at this stage.
I would now call attention to the report of the Ministry of Labour, dated 1st October, 1949, giving a number of figures to show what the workers are receiving. A large number of people who are surface workers in the mining industry receive, inclusive of the value-in-kind allowances, £5 per week. In the pottery industry, group M2 labourers get £4 10s., group M3 labourers get £4 10s., group M5C receive £4 14s. Women in F1 group gets £3, in F4 group £3 5s., and in group F6, £3 10s. 6d. All those are minimum weekly rates, minus stoppages. This House has a great record in recognising


the need for action in this kind of thing. In soap manufacture the men get £5 2s. and the women £3 10s. What becomes of our 20-year demand for equal pay for equal work? The wages paid in industries covered by wages regulations are calculated to range from £4 10s. to £4 15s. for men and for women from £2 15s. to £3 10s. If anyone wants to check these figures, they are on pages 189 and 190 of the Ministry of Labour Report of 1st October, 1949.

Mr. Harrison: Do those figures exclude overtime?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, they are minimum figures. I am pleased with the interjection because we do not want misunderstanding about these matters. The facts themselves cut so sharply that I am convinced that when they are placed on record, public opinion will deal with them in time. Those are only a few examples of low wages and of the need for equal pay for equal work. The minimum wage in industries subject to wage regulation should be £5 a week, and I should like to know what action the Minister proposes to take about this.
I want to make it quite clear that, while I am advocating State action, the need for the trade union movement is as great as ever, if not greater. This imposes upon us greater responsibility and we must be worthy of that responsibility. We must become more positive in our approach to our problems, and trade union ideas, policy and action must not be, like the law of the Medes and Persians, unalterable. We must adapt ourselves to new ideas and the quickly changing times of the 20th century.
Here are some facts which should be placed on record. This is part of the terrible burden imposed upon the productive industry of this country. In 1914 the National Debt was £649,770,000. In 1920 it was—[Interruption.] Do not try to be so funny. If my hon. Friend had been listening to my suggestions he would have understood this.

Mr. John McKay: Is. my hon. Friend referring to me?

Hon. Members: Carry on.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The National Debt in 1920—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not all on the one side."] The interests of the

people will be reflected on this side as they have been in this House for many years. If hon. Members want to create difficulties for those engaged in industry, those people will be able to read the proceedings here and judge each one of us upon our record both in war and in peace. The National Debt which productive industry was carrying in 1920 was £7,828,779,000 and in 1949 it was £25,167,611,000. The interest on that has to be produced by those engaged in productive industry.
Here is the total cost of Government officials. In 1914 it was £79 million, in 1920 £170 million, and in 1946 £259 million. In addition, terrible overhead charges are imposed upon productive industry by the trade associations, price maintenance associations, quotas and branding, and many hon. Members opposite have a great responsibility for the organising of these restrictive practices in industry. Before industry gets a chance, trade restrictions and prices are increased to an enormous extent compared with the cost of materials in other countries. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the trade unions?"] An hon. Member makes an interjection which delights me.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: There were restrictive practices on both sides of industry—in the trade union movement and among employers—for the very simple reason that there was fear of unemployment. The reasons for that have now completely disappeared and there is now no need for restrictive practices on either side of industry.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The House will agree with that, but we should be delighted to support any proposal for an investigation into our trade restrictive practices, including the effects of certain associations.
Therefore we are asking that our case should be considered. We ask for an extension of the joint consultative practices to consider the cost of production and the cost of our overhead charges. We ask for the complete recognition of the trade unions in all concerns in order that they may accept their share of responsibility in investigating these questions. These are now questions of great urgency. They are further steps in the development of democracy. To place these facts on record we ask for this


investigation in order that organised labour in this country may carry on in the way that it has been carrying op during the past 10 years, putting the needs of the country before the needs of any sectional interest.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Alport: I welcome the opportunity which this Adjournment Motion gives us to discuss an extremely important subject. I welcome it just as much as I deplore the arguments used by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in his speech, because it struck me that I was hearing once again, as we have heard so often in this House and outside it, arguments best calculated to mislead those whom we—and particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite—should be in a position to guide and help.
I want to make it quite clear that I and my hon. and right hon. Friends are quite as concerned as hon. Gentlemen opposite with practical methods for improving the conditions of the lowest paid workers today. Although they never give us any credit for the fact, it is quite clear that the country, and the workers in particular, are beginning to realise that they will get practical help in their difficulties from this side of the House rather from the theorists and the woolly-headed thinkers on the other side.

Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. Member forgive me a moment——

Mr. Alport: I am afraid not. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough gave the impression that the beginning of all Government action to improve conditions of work and life within industry in this country began with the birth of the Socialist Party at the end of the 19th century.

Mr. Blackburn: Why not go back to 1500?

Mr. Alport: I agree that we go back long before then, but hon. Members opposite are never aware of any working class history before the first years of this century. They do not know, for instance, that the greatest progress in the improvement of industrial conditions was made under the Tory Social Reformers of the 1830's. They have never heard the names of Oastler and Michael Sadler. They have never heard the names of Ferreno

and Parson Bull. Those names do not come into the era of working class history that they read.

Mr. Harrison: The Chartists.

Mr. Alport: And the Chartists, too, amongst whose leaders were numbered a great many Conservatives, including some of those names I have just mentioned. I suggest that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, before they are so quick to criticise this side of the House, should be more certain of their facts of working class history than they have been up to the present. [Interruption.] They "know." But they do not know that often what they are saying is nonsense, and that is the great trouble about them. They think that they know everything, yet they are so ignorant of the real facts of life.
What we have had tonight is a curious combination of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough advocating more or less a similar policy to that produced by a noble Lord in another place immediately before the election, and the fallacies which were pointed out by Members and speakers representing the party on this side of the House apply just as much to the arguments of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough as they did to those of the noble Lord.
It has been an argument which the Socialist Party have used for many years past that the only problem of improving conditions, of increasing wages, is to pay out more money, regardless of what that money means in terms of real income. It is grossly misleading for hon. Members opposite to stand up here and claim credit in the eyes of the workers who wrongly, as we think, in many cases look to them for leadership and inspiration.

Mr. Harrison: Hear, hear.

Mr. Alport: Yes, we acknowledge it; but how misled they are when they have to listen to arguments, which they have heard so often before, that it is merely a question of providing additional wages, regardless of what those wages can buy in terms of things that people need.

Mr. Brockway: Mr. Brockway rose——

Mr. Alport: I am sorry—and that is precisely——

Mr. Harold Davies: The hon. Member knows that that is completely untrue.

Mr. Alport: The wickedness of the hon. Members——

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member dare not give way.

Mr. Alport: This is the second time I have spoken in this House, and I intend to make the point which I have waited for a long time to make. I have listened to this argument, this misleading falsehood, that has been produced in this House and outside it too long and I intend to take this opportunity of doing my best to bring what I believe to be the truth to the ears of the workers, who, as I say, depend too much on hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Brockway: Mr. Brockway rose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Alport: What is the argument that hon. Gentlemen opposite have raised? Let me refer to another point that was made by the two speakers opposite. They referred to the unrest between the wars. We acknowledge that there was unrest. There was the 1926 strike, which we remember as sadly as do hon. Members opposite. We realise the great difficulties which it caused to all classes of people, including those who were misled enough to go on strike at that time. But what was the reason for that, and what were hon. Members opposite doing during that period? They were fomenting that type of industrial unrest by using precisely the arguments which they have been using here tonight.
What is it that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said? He said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had forgotten the psychological importance of the fact that where an underpaid worker sees somebody better off than himself, there is bound to be trouble. Is that not merely an echo, using words of somewhat more syllables, of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said, I think, in the Budget Debate when he recounted a meeting with the late Lord Keynes on a trans-Atlantic voyage? When asked the reason for many aspects of the economic policy which the last Government were following, the late Lord Keynes said that the reason was hate. And that is what the hon. Member

for Eton and Slough has been preaching tonight. I know—and this is what disturbs me so much——

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member, who has so far not even had the courtesy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), to accuse him of preaching hate when he did nothing of the kind, as those of us on this side of the House know perfectly well?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know; I was not here.

Mr. Alport: I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) was not here at that time either.

Mr. Blackburn: May I point out that I was present?

Mr. Alport: I was not here during the opening words of the speech of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, but I heard his argument and I think he was not realising where it was leading him. The truth is that that period of industrial unrest in the years immediately before the war was merely a continuation of the unrest which was being stirred up by using the unhappy economic and social consequences of the industrial revolution in the middle of the 19th century. It is the whole basis of the Marxist theory and is being continued at the present time and will continue to prevent the drawing together, as we on this side of the House hope for and work for, of the two nations that Disraeli noted and which Marx noted almost at the same time, in the same generation, 100 years ago.
Pleas on the basis which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough used in this House tonight merely continue the gulf between those who are well-off and those who are poorly off, without giving any really practical answer as to how we are to raise those poorly off to proper minimum standards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford has often referred throughout his political life to how we are to take practical measures to raise the lowest levels of income and achieve a decent standard of living for all men and women.
It is no good harping on these undoubted grievances and stirring them up without producing any answer, or attempting to produce a practical answer.


That has been shown by the tenor of speeches from hon. Members opposite tonight, for they provide no practical answer. I hope it will be noticed in all ranks of organised labour that, to all intents and purposes, the speeches from the other side of the House have amounted to a vote of no confidence in the trade union movement—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the Government"]—and the Government, but the Government are less important in this matter than the trade union movement, because very few have confidence in the Government.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member had better look at the record of his own party before he accuses anyone else.

Mr. Alport: We have based industrial policy on the machinery of free negotiation. Hon. Members opposite tell us that they regard the machinery of negotiation for the improvement of wages as insufficient and that therefore the Government must take some action to supplement it, to improve it and change it in ways which were not clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, in order to carry out what we all hope for—a gradual increase in the rewards of those in the lowest income groups.

Mr. Harrison: I am very much obliged for the courtesy the hon. Member has offered us. He sympathises with the lower-paid workers and the lower-paid railway workers have been mentioned on several occasions during the Debate. May I assume that when we are discussing ways and means of providing the cash to improve the standard of living of lower-paid workers on the railways on Wednesday of this week, he will go into the Lobby and vote with us for an increase in rates and fares?

Mr. Alport: Let us be quite clear; that is purely a debating point. I have paid particular attention to the problem of the railways. Not long ago I was speaking to a ticket collector on what is now the Eastern Region. We were talking about the problem of the lower-paid workers on the railways. He said to me, "I can tell you how the wages of the lower-paid workers can be raised. You saw the engine driver of that express that just went by? He gets £9 a week; I get £5 a week. Take a pound from his wages and put it on to mine, and that will solve the

problem." That is precisely what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been preaching for many years past, and it is not now merely a question of taking the money from the so-called rich, but in the minds of many of the workers whom hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have misled, of dragging down to their own level workers who have risen a little higher than themselves in the scheme of things.

Mr. Manuel: Did the hon. Member ascertain the agreed wage rates of railway locomotive drivers, or is he assuming the correctness of this £9 a week?

Mr. Alport: I was merely repeating verbatim what I was told by this railway employee. Whether he was wrong or not, I do not know.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member should find out the facts himself. That is his duty as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Alport: I am certainly entitled to repeat, without changing it, what a worker has said to me, in order to answer hon. Members opposite.
That is what has in fact been the result. They have done an injustice not only by misleading the lower-paid worker but also by misleading and putting into a false position both the people at whom they have been aiming, the people who are better off, and those within the ranks of the organised workers who, as a result of their special skill, ability and responsibility, earn and deserve higher rewards than the others. After all, hon. Members opposite argue against the trade union principle of the "differential." If the minimum wage goes up in terms of money, will it not also be necessary, right and proper and just to put up all other wages equally if the men concerned earn it and deserve it, like the engine driver to whom I have referred, with his responsibility for 500 lives? Does he not deserve £4 or £5 more per week than the ticket collector who merely clips tickets? Hon. Members are advocating what the noble Lord advocated before the election—that is an easy means to inflation and all the awful consequences inflation will produce not only to those who are well off but to those who are poorest.
It seems to me quite clear that the real answer—hon. Gentlemen opposite


have asked me to make some constructive answer—to this problem is not merely to juggle with money wages, though I agree that there must and should be adjustments in the present monetary rewards of workers in various industries, including the railways. What is really important is that the cost of living should be brought down so that the money which men earn is worth more in real terms than it is at present. That is the real answer, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite in their speeches had advanced any argument whatsoever about the way in which we can bring down the cost of living—a cost which rests so hardly on the shoulders of the working class community at present—I would have been with them wholeheartedly. I certainly do not agree with the arguments they have produced. Those arguments are very misleading and very unfair to those whom they claim to represent.
Let it not be thought that I and my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House are not as determined as any hon. Member on the Government benches to do our level best to achieve a minimum standard of living for the people of this country. We believe that can be achieved through a right and wise policy designed to increase—[An HON. MEMBER: "Profits."]—the wealth of the nation as a whole while at the same time maintaining a fair distribution of reward to all sections of the community.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: I trust that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) will forgive me if I do not follow him in very great detail. Perhaps the kindest comment I could make on his speech is that for a number of years I have been a student and teacher of history and, to say the least of it, his history is inexact. One might add to that the comment of my hon. Friend who is a railwayman, the Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), and who proved that the hon. Gentleman's facts about the railways are wrong.
I am anxious, if I can, to return to the subject of our discussion. In rising to speak to this Motion tonight one recognises immediately the dilemma in which any Government is bound to find itself at this critical time. This dilemma is

the danger of inflation on one side and the problem of poverty on the other. Certainly, it is true to say that any great increase of wages leads to inflation, with the consequent spiral in the cost of living. The Chancellor, in his dealing with this problem of inflation, has generally been both wiser and more honest than his critics; for, if one were to refuse the discipline of Socialism in this system of wage increases, inevitably the people who would suffer most in the end from the increased cost of production would be the workers themselves.
I believe the Chancellor was right in setting his face against what, in the Survey, he called, "the danger of the resurgence of inflationary pressure." On the other hand, although he has been successful at keeping inflation at bay, I feel that at this point it is very important to recognise that the other problem—the problem of the real poverty of the lowest paid workers in this country—has, perhaps, become even more acute than that of inflation.
The Chancellor has set his face against tax concessions and against concessions of any kind, and he has warned the trade unions that the consequence of increased wage pressures at all levels would be mass unemployment, but I fear he has applied the stopper at the point of the break and not the point of pressure. If my interpretation is right, I fear that the danger to our economy at this time is the danger that the freeze will burst just the same because of the just claims of those who are at the lowest wage levels
The real strength of the wage claims that are being put forward at this time is that behind them are levels of real poverty. The danger of inflation is not at the level at which the Chancellor is now facing it. The lowest paid working people of this country are already deflated, and I believe that the Minister of Labour would be wise if he conceded the appeals that are being made to him to institute some inquiry into the needs of the most lowly paid among our people.
I agree that there is no easy solution to this difficult problem. Nevertheless, without beginning to make a detailed and careful inquiry, it is obvious even to the most casual observer that the decline in transport receipts and in cheap cinema seats, the decrease in small savings and


the admission of the Government about the need of those who are on N.A.B. scales and the grant of increases, are evidence of the fact that at the lowest level in this country at this time there is acute and grievous poverty.
I believe that if inflation exists, it exists at the level of the drinkers of the 2,800,000 bottles of champagne that were drunk in this country last year, the spenders of capital. The evidence at the lowest level is evidence of a need for an inquiry by the Government into the whole question of the wages structure of this country. I fear that if I were to go on to add what I think the Government should do at that inquiry, I should fall into disfavour with the Chair, but I would add that even in the present legislative set-up it is possible for the Government—and I hope the Government will take this step—not only to make an inquiry into what I believe will give ample evidence of deep and serious poverty at the lowest levels, but to give the trade unions an opportunity to exercise statesmanship within the new Socialist setup of this country. It might be possible for the trade unions to begin negotiations within their own ranks and with the employers to see if some kind of wages structure could be set up within industry that would enable increases of pay and allowances to be made to those beneath the 95s. a week level, without putting pressure at the same time to increase the wages of higher paid workers.
For my own part I should have been glad if the Chancellor had said frankly to the unions who are asking for general wage increases that it is impossible for such a general increase to be made, but that the £400 million about which he was speaking ought to be—and he was prepared for it to be—spread among the most lowly paid workers in the country. It may be that I am wrong, but I believe that though there would have been all kinds of protests, in the end the workers would have recognised the justice of the offer and would have accepted it. I take strength from my remembrance of the record of the miners, for instance, from whom I myself have sprung, who in 1945, when they could have held the nation to ransom, in the interests of the nation as a whole were prepared to sacrifice their own immediate interests.
The Government itself, moreover, could give a lead in this matter if the evidence of any inquiry made were to be what I believe it would be. The contribution which the Government could make is within its own nationalised industries. There it could give a lead. Were I to suggest what could be done by the Government with the money which is being paid, for instance, by way of compensation in the railways, it would involve legislation. I will not, therefore, dare to suggest it, but the terms of the Government inquiry could extend to the level of seeking to find whether there was not a way by which the income and expenditure structure of the industries within national control could set an example to the rest of industry.
That, together, with the control which the Government exercises through its various Departments on so wide an area of life, would not be just a pious hope, as was suggested earlier in this Debate. I believe the rest of industry would take an example from the Government in this respect and the Government, by such action, would be doing something to set an example to the rest of industry of the way in which the most poorly paid workers should be treated.
At this juncture in our history this is the most important, the most difficult and the most dangerous of the questions which the Government have to face. For me, politics in the last resort resolves itself into a simple issue. I am a Socialist because I believe that all the industry, the economic resources and the political resources of the nation should be used to assist the people, and from that point of view, the poorest of the people are the first concern of Government. Without in any way attempting to exacerbate the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I say that I believe the restraint in industrial warfare which we have seen in the last five years has been due very largely—and I would even go so far as to say almost exclusively—to the fact that we have had a Government in this country which the workers have believed is concerned with them and their needs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I offer that as my convinced and honestly held judgment. I may be wrong, but that is what I believe.
I believe that hope of the maintenance of industrial peace and increased produc-


tivity in this country, and happiness and contentment even amongst the poorest of our people, depends upon the continuance of that faith in this Government by those people. For that reason I am desperately anxious, not for our sakes but for theirs, that they shall not lose that faith, and for that reason I urge the Minister of Labour to promise us tonight that he will set up such an inquiry, that he will do all that lies in his power to help those who are humblest and poorest among our people to achieve the decent, dignified standard of life which is the right of every man.
If we fail in this respect we shall have failed in the gravest responsibility of our Government. The future will then lie not with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who feel that the day may come when they will step into our shoes, but with the Communists. There is a Scripture saying:
Not many mighty, not many noble are called … but the weak things of the world … and the things that are despised and the things that are not … to bring to nothing the things that are.
It is not possible to maintain a civilisation and an economy based upon the poverty and misery of the people who stand lowest in society. I believe that the first duty of this Government as of every Government is to see that those who are the poorest and meekest and greatest in need shall be dealt with. It is to the credit of this Government that, whatever may be said in criticism of them from the opposite benches, they have in the years that are gone been faithful in their loyalty to the poorest amongst our people. I trust they will continue now to be so.

9.55. p.m.

Mr. Leather: I should like to intervene for just a moment to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams). He has talked very laudably about the faith that his own party have kept with the poorest paid workers in the community, but I do not think that that is true. If it were true, then the lowest paid workers would not today be in the very difficult position in which they find themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are better off than they ever have been."] If they are much better off than they ever have been, this Debate is a

sheer waste of time, because hon. Members opposite have spent the last two hours telling us how desperate their plight is. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways.
I was amazed to hear the challenge to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) on this subject—to go into the Division Lobby on Wednesday to vote in favour of the 16⅔ per cent. increase in the freight rates. Surely hon. Members are aware that that is a disastrous blow to the standard of living of the lowest paid workers in the country? There is not one single item that the wives of those poorly paid workers will have to buy that will not be affected by that increase in freight rates.
Another hon. Member referred to the people who drink champagne. I did not think I should have occasion to refer to this, but it is a fact, for which I can provide witnesses if anyone wants me to do so, and for anyone who wants to produce this kind of argument—we do not, but an hon. Member opposite has raised it—that I was in one of the dining rooms of this Palace at 8.30 tonight, and there were eight people dining there; there were five Socialists drinking wine and three Tories drinking beer. The names can be provided to the Whips' Office if that is desired.
A serious point I should like to tackle is this. Hon. Members opposite do not like the fact that I happen to be a working trade unionist. If it were not for some prejudice amongst some hon. Members opposite, I should be on the Parliamentary committee of my union at this moment. I understand their prejudices but they cannot ask me to share them.

Mr. Harrison: What is the hon. Gentleman's union?

Mr. Leather: A.S.S.E.T. Ask the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). [HON. MEMBERS: "Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a Communist."] No, I have made that quite clear They do not think I am a Communist. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) has not accused me of being a Communist. I, too, feel great concern about this problem, and one thing that I deplore is this arrogance of many hon. Members opposite in thinking that they are the only people in this


country who are concerned with the lowest paid workers.

Mr. Harrison: What is the lowest pay in the hon. Member's union? What is the particular grade at £5 or below?

Mr. Leather: To be perfectly frank, as the hon. Member well knows, it is impossible for me to answer because my union covers every range of the engineering industry. [Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Member did not know that, he has learned something.
The point I want to make is this. There are two ways of tackling this problem. We resent, and I heartily resent, this sneer at us that hon. Members opposite are the only people really concerned with this problem. I have come from the same status in society as most of them claim to come from.

Mr. Harrison: We are still there.

Mr. Leather: Maybe, but perhaps I have worked a little harder than the hon. Member. I have exactly the same concern as hon. Members opposite have, but I have been in the trade union movement long enough to know that the arguments——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. Leather: I have been in the trade union movement long enough to know that the argument of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South, about upgrading those at the bottom and asking everybody else to stand fast, just will not wash; the trade union movement will not wear it; and I feel certain the Minister will agree with me on that point. Differentials as an incentive to increased skill, increased craftsmanship and increased production that we all want, are important. But there is another way of solving this problem—a way that the Government have directly in their control, without worrying the trade union movement at all. Indeed, we all know perfectly well that the trade union movement would be the first to welcome it. It is to raise the real wage standards of all our workers by cutting the fantastic cost of living which is the direct result of Government policy.
Why is it that today these workers are in this difficult position? The plight of the railway workers has been referred to on many occasions, and no one would make out that today £4 10s. a week is a princely wage. In 1945–46 men on £4 10s. a week could get by, but today they cannot for the simple reason that £4 10s. will not buy today what it bought in 1945. The responsibility for that lies directly on the Government benches, and nowhere else; as a direct result of their high taxation policy, and of their nationalisation. Every financial step they have taken has been a contributory factor in raising the cost of living for these workers. We have the greatest sympathy——

Mr. Manuel: What about food subsidies?

Mr. Leather: Food subsidies are one of the things that keeps their cost of living down, and I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the chairman of the Tory Party for having started food subsidies.
There are two ways in particular in which the Government can cut the cost of living without worrying about differentials or upsetting the trade union movement. They can do so by cutting their crippling taxation, their Purchase Tax, and all their other schemes; by stopping——

Mr. Speaker: Cutting the Purchase Tax would involve legislation, and that is not in order on an Adjournment Debate.

Mr. Leather: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, and I will not pursue that argument in detail, but I do call for your protection when hon. Members opposite accuse me of making no concrete suggestions when the form of this Debate prevents me from doing so.
In conclusion, I make this one point briefly, because I know the Minister wants time to reply. Inflation is something that hon. Members should understand very well. To inflate a balloon air is blown into it, and it goes up, and up, and up, and if one does not stop pumping air in it bursts. The economy of this country is exactly like that: it is being constantly inflated by having too much money pumped into it by the Government, and the people who have been hurt most by that pumping are the lowest paid workers.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I will not detain the House for very long, but I do want to say that the Opposition seem to have missed the entire purpose of this Debate. One of the things we are trying to bring home to the Opposition is brought out excellently in "Lloyds Bank Review," which gives the old solution to the problem which the Opposition would use if this country were silly enough to put them into power. For the first time in history full, employment creates a problem, and under the old laissez-faire system, in which the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) got to the top of the tree——

Mr. Leather: No, Sir. I have never advocated laissez-faire, and the hon. Member knows it.

Mr. Davies: Under the old laissez-faire system of society we had to have the trade union movement struggling for the best wages it could possibly get.

Mr. Leather: Would the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Davies: I usually give way, but I cannot tonight as I want to speak only for about three minutes so that we may hear the Minister.

Mr. Leather: I am not a Liberal: I am only sitting on their benches.

Mr. Davies: The second point that the hon. Gentleman must discover is this: That the capitalist system of society has been weighed in the balance and found wanting; it has died all over the world.

Mr. Leather: Nonsense.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense." Because of the fear of Japanese and German competition, hon. Members opposite have asked us to use non-capitalist methods to protect us from that competition. We on this side of the House are the only ones in the most difficult transitional period in the history of mankind who have tried to meet this problem. We simply say that some system of concerted wages policy is needed in this transitional period. All we are asking is that, without taking from the authority of the trade union movement and without impinging on its excellent work, we might set up an inquiry into this

problem of the wages of the lower paid workers. May we, when we are considering that problem, know the answer which is given by the bankers? An article by Mr. S. R. Dennison in last month's "Lloyds Bank Review" states:
The existence of over-full employment is, indeed, the dominating element in the problem of wages. The need for a 'wages policy' arises because of the determination to keep unemployment down to a minimum …
Then comes his answer:
It is impossible to say by how much the objective of maintaining the maximum possible level of employment would have to be modified in order to make these problems capable of solution, but there are grounds for believing that only a slight rise from the present level of unemployment, which is 1.8 per cent. of insured workers, would make an appreciable difference"—
in solving most of this problem. In other words, that is the only answer which the Opposition have to give in this period of full employment.
Tonight we have heard the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) say that the wage rate for an engine driver is £9 a week, when the basic rate is £6 18s.

Mr. Black: He did not say that.

Mr. Davies: It was stated, and whoever repeated it, should have taken the trouble to find out the facts. All that we ask the Minister tonight is whether it is a practical suggestion to have some investigation into this problem of the underpaid worker in a period of full employment, which is being maintained in England and nowhere else in the world at the present moment.

10.8 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am afraid that I cannot give much help to the House tonight for this reason. At five minutes past eight, I received a message that on the Adjournment would be raised the Motion which appeared on the Order Paper for Friday last and which was not reached. I got here at 8.20 p.m. after the Debate had started, and I had no opportunity to look at any of the papers that I had prepared for that Motion on Friday. After sitting here for a couple of hours, I have not heard the Motion referred to. We have been all round the world and talked of all sorts of things; we have had some


interesting contributions, some very funny ones, and some which were difficult to understand.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) has gone out of the Chamber. He told us about woolly-headed thinking, and I want to say that he has done a little muddle-headed speaking. He has talked about working-class history. He may have read about it from books but some of us have taken part in these things. It is no good his saying that all the good conditions which the workers have today are due to Conservative Governments because I am old enough to remember the fight for the dockers' "tanner," and that the member of my union worked 70 hours to earn a £1 a week in Fleet Street.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro (Kidderminster) rose——

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member has not trouble to be here to listen to the Debate, but has come into the House only in the last five minutes.

Mr. Nabarro: I have been here all the evening.

Mr. Isaacs: Do not provoke me to retort. The hon. Member has not been here, and that is a direct challenge. For those of us who remember the fights we had—I remember the fight we had to get an extra "tanner" for our people—it does not do well for someone who has only just come into this House to preach to us about the value of the Conservative Party to the trade union movement.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), in spite of some of the wide things he said, made a good contribution to the Debate. If I understood him correctly, his point was that earnings based upon production are a good thing for the community, because it does not matter how high wages go, as production goes up with them. We have more systems of payments by result than ever before. They are growing in extent and are more popular these days, because when a price has been fixed for the job, the employers do not try to cut it down when a man makes good pay out of it. In the old days, when I was working on book-binding, I found that when I started to earn more, the rate was cut down,

because there was no union to protect us. There is a better response now on the part of employers. Having fixed the rate, they stand by that rate. Instead of envying the man who is getting a big rate, they encourage him because it is to their advantage to do so.

Mr. Leather: I entirely agree with what the Minister says, and I support him. Would he not agree, however, that this process of development has been due to the employers and trade unions? Does he not consider that they are responsible for this happy state of affairs and not this Government or any other Government? Does he not agree that this happy state of affairs has been brought about under a free enterprise system?

Mr. Isaacs: I have already indicated how wide we have got from the Motion that was on the Order Paper, which I thought we were discussing. It is a fact that the activities of the trade unions, assisted from time to time by legislation, such as fair wages contracts, have enabled us to build up a good industrial relationship in this country. Whatever may be our opinions, and whatever the strictures of my hon. Friends may be about low wages, there have been no strictures on industrial relations in this country, which are the best in any country in the world.
Let me come now to the hon. Member who opened the Debate. He did not get very far with his speech before Mr. Deputy-Speaker reminded him that we could not do this and that without legislation. He avoided using the word "legislation," but went on to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should undertake a survey, and that we could establish a wages system through the wages councils. He also said that we could give a lead by increasing wages in the nationalised industries. The Government cannot increase wages through the wages councils. They are completely free and independent. The Minister has no authority to say what wages are paid, and, as far as the nationalised industries are concerned, the Government are definitely not the body to whom applications for wages have to be made. The nationalisation Acts make it clear that the nationalised industries must negotiate with their workers, or their representatives, on all questions of wages and working conditions.
It is not my business, nor is it my duty, to deal with a number of points which have been brought forward, because many of them involve the Treasury and the Board of Trade more than the Ministry of Labour. I doubt the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that there are two million fully employed workers whose earnings do not reach £5 a week. He said "earnings" and not "wages." I know that there are a number of industries, some of them among the wage council industries, where there is an adult minimum wage of less than £5 a week. A number of them, however, by incentives and bonuses are paid more, but the fact remains there are those wages and it is not for the Minister to say, "You must pay up to £5 a week."
One of the dangers of the Government interfering in wages and fixing a definite minimum is that so often a minimum wage becomes a maximum. Many of my colleagues in this House who have actually negotiated these wages—not studied them at some school or college—will remember that when a minimum was fixed that often became a maximum. What opportunity has any trade union to come forward and seek an increase of wages for men getting £5 a week when the answer will be, "The Government says £5 a week is enough and why should you ask for more?" There are dangers from that.
We had another interesting suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough. He picked on something that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is alleged to have said. I do not say that he did say it or he did not; I did not hear it. It is with reference to the Government increasing the wages of the underpaid workers, and that £200 million ought to be available for wage increases so that, the Chancellor is supposed to have said, wages could be standardised on the £5 level. But what about the variations on the way up the scale? Suppose the Chancellor gives £200 million or £50 million for increased wages, and that is to be shared between the various organisations. I should like to be at the meeting of the Trades Union Congress when it is decided what part shall be given to this industry and what part to the other industry. When doing

my old job I should not like to have been told, "There is a million pounds to spread amongst your own members. How are you going to share it?" I would have promptly resigned and asked for another man to do the job. These things do not happen that way.
What the Government think is that the present system with all its faults and defects—and there are some—is the best. We are obliged to leave to industry the fixing of its own wages and working conditions. We have provided, through the Ministry of Labour, a system of conciliation, arbitration, negotiation and services that are unparalleled in the world, and we are able to give assistance to those bodies which have formed conclusions. If we are faced with a decision of the Government taken in the House of Commons that there is to be a certain fixed minimum wage, then our interference would be suspect by those people who do not want to pay up to the £5 minimum, and those people who want more than the £5 minimum.
So far as the question of the so-called "wage-freeze" is concerned, it has been made clear all along by the Government that there would be no objection to increases for lower paid workers. In fact, the Government raised no objections to the increases that have been made. A number of increases were given during that period, and it is to the credit of the trade unions, their responsibility to their members as well as to the feeling of enterprise in their leaders, that many of them have completely suspended their wage applications and many of them have modified the applications they have made. Some cases have gone to the National Arbitration Tribunal, and the Tribunal has seen fit in some cases to give increases, an indication that there has been no attempt to guide that Tribunal as to whether they should or should not give increases in wages. They have been free and independent and they gave some such increases.

Mr. Blackburn: Wages on the average in my constituency have gone up during the so-called "wage freeze." Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the term "wage freeze" is entirely a misnomer because the Government want wages and production to go up at the same time?

Mr. Isaacs: That is quite so. It is one of those unfortunate phrases which come into common currency like that insulting and offensive phrase coined between the wars. When a man was drawing unemployment benefit he was referred to as being "on the dole," because a newspaper used that phrase on one occasion and it kept recurring. There is no wage freeze. In fact, I remember at a meeting of a big miners' organisation when somebody was complaining about the wage freeze, one of the miners said, "Would you rather have your wages frozen under a Labour Government or paralysed under a Tory Government?" He preferred freezing because it was always possible to thaw out afterwards. If he got paralysis, he could do nothing about it at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said—and I am sorry he used this one sentence—that we must get away from the complacent attitude of "leave it to both sides of industry," because that was out of date in this country. It is not complacency on our part. It is done because we think it is the best method of doing it. We do not think the method is out of date. If we are not to leave this matter to the free negotiation of the unions and the employers, and if we were to put something else in its place, we could only do so by legislation. We cannot discuss legislation at this moment but I can say definitely that the Government have no intention of introducing legislation to upset the wage system now operating.
There has been a suggestion that we should conduct an inquiry. The suggestion was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, and it was pretty wide. He wanted it to cover production costs, materials, overhead charges, selling prices and so on. That is a pretty wide scope to take for the purpose of deciding whether lower paid workers should have an increase in wages.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have known my right hon. Friend for many years and I have worked with him. I always found him very fair. He ought to be fair in this matter and recognise that it was not the Motion which was being considered, and that it would have been out of order

if we had asked for legislation. We had to confine ourselves to what was in order, namely, to ask for an investigation into what legislative action could be taken.

Mr. Isaacs: I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that I was speaking to him in terms of rebuke. I was not. I was simply saying that should we desire to replace the present system by another system, it would probably require legislation. We should not be in order in discussing legislation tonight. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the need for an inquiry. I would ask them to recall the great effort that has been made by the leaders of our trade "unions to gather support for the wage standstill at the present moment. They have been fairly successful, but it is true that the strength of the support that they have is not now so strong as it was at the beginning. For us to turn round and say now that we want to institute an inquiry into the system of calculating wages would be rather throwing cold water on their efforts to support the Government in their policy of wage restraint.
In any event, I could never engage in such a movement as that. Neither this Government nor any other Government could do so without first ascertaining the views of industry, and not only the views of the trade unions. It is my great privilege to take the chair at the National Joint Advisory Council, where we have the leading employers of the country as well as the leaders of the trade unions. I would not contemplate giving the slightest hint of such an investigation without discussing the matter with those employers. Those employers are as anxious to maintain the right to negotiate wages with their workers as the workers are to negotiate with their employers. I could not possibly give any kind of indication of support to proposals such as have been made.
A point of some value from the Debate is that attention has been drawn to these low-paid workers. It brings in its train other things. I will not name the industry, but I know one which has been in the public mind in recent months in which certain workers are somewhat below the £5 level. If we look upon that as a basic line we have to remember that between these men and those who are above the line there are three or four stages. There-


fore, if we move these men up to £5, the man who is at present getting £5 and is taking on a job with far more responsibility will say, "I am not going to do this job with all this extra responsibility without some extra pay." So we begin to go right up the scale of differentials, and we cannot avoid that.
Whether it is good or bad, there is another factor which is of great importance at the moment. This has come to a head quite definitely in one great industry where it is being put forward as a principle. It is that the wage of the unskilled worker has come too close to that of the highly skilled worker. The highly skilled worker has some justification for saying, "If I am to serve a five, six or seven years' apprenticeship at a very low remuneration and not get a standard wage until I am 21 and at the same time I see my school friend who has gone in as an unskilled worker and does not serve an apprenticeship getting a much better wage as an unskilled labourer than I am as an apprentice, and then at the end of the time I shall only get a few shillings more than my friend, why should I trouble to be an apprentice?" That has had some effect on the apprenticeship system of the country.
Therefore, though we have the greatest desire in the world to raise the wages of the lower paid workers, we have to remember the differentials all up the scale, and at the same time we have to remember that we may do some danger to the apprenticeship system if we make it appear to the young fellow that he will do better as an unindentured worker than as an indentured worker.
Those are the problems which are exercising our minds. They are the kind of problems that the Ministry of Labour, through the Minister, are continually discussing with the responsible officials of the trade unions. The unions come to us and explain their problems; we go to them and draw attention to the ideas of the Government on these matters. There is a constant coming to and fro between us", and although that constant movement may be more frequent now than it was in the past, in the days when I was on the other side of the fence acting for a trade union, when a different Government was in power, I had just the same freedom of

access to the Ministry of Labour and was always able to go to them and get their advice and assistance on these matters. The Ministry of Labour exists to do this job for industry irrespective of whoever may be in office at the time.
I have to finish with what I said earlier. That is, that I cannot give any undertaking about any such inquiry. I should only be willing to take any steps when I found willingness on the part of the industrial leaders that any such movement should be considered. I emphasise again that the Government are satisfied that by the present system of leaving industries to work out their own wages system we are not only doing the best for industry and for the State, but we are giving a great lead to other nations—especially some of those where wages are fixed by Government decree, which we want to avoid—than by having regular Debates in the House of Commons, day by day, and week by week, as to whether an industry should have an increase in wages or not.
I have said that I could not answer some points because they were not the concern of my Ministry and I have had no notice of them. Subject to that, I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with what I have been able to say. As I have said, I am satisfied that the Debate has served a useful purpose.

Mr. Blackburn: May we take it that, while accepting the qualification which my right hon. Friend made at the end of his speech, so far as the workers with under £5 a week are concerned, the Ministry is discussing these matters as and when opportunity occurs with the trade union movement?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The Ministry does not in the slightest degree discuss what wages should be.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not the case that the fixing of a minimum wage is the function of the trade union movement and of the employers and not of the Government, and that if the Government will keep out of it, unless they are invited jointly by the employers and the workers it will be far better for the industry concerned?

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.